[dobin]

I think open source licenses didnt even arrive in the 2000 to deal with the web.

The original intend was to make the source code available, done by distributing the compiled program. With SAAS companies (FAANG...) can just use open source on the servers, never distribute their program, only the output. Therefore not requiring making their changes available to the public.

[gattilorenz]

That’s tivoization, and the GNU Affero GPL license cover that case already. It’s not very common, however.

[grumbel]

The AGPL only covers a very tiny bit of it, i.e. the access to the source code of Web services. The crux however is that access to the source code is largely meaningless when you aren't the one running the program. The problems we have on the Web are all related to the control and flow of data, not program source, and none of the regular Open Source licenses even touch that topic. Even CreativeCommons doesn't address any of it.

If Facebook released all its all its source code tomorrow, nothing would change, they are still the ones controlling the server and controlling your data. You being able to run your own version of facebook.com is meaningless when all the data is still locked behind the actual facebook.com, you just have a useless empty server full of nothing.

The one document that actual covers the flow of data is the GDPR, but that's a European law, not a Free Software license. Good for Europe, but if some Free Software developer in another country wants to grantee their endusers the same amount of freedom as the GDPR, they have do DIY their own license, as there is nothing ready made they can stick on to their program. Furthermore the GDPR doesn't go far enough, e.g. the ability to export data out of a service is great start, but the GDPR allows that process to take up to 30 days, making it useless for any kind of real time interaction between services. A "Free Data" license could go much further than what the GDPR offers and try to make it so that data can actually freely flow between services instead of being locked behind one.

[gattilorenz]

True, but the OP was talking about programs, not data.

[alexvoda]

That useless empty server is not so useless when the GDPR exists that mandates that platforms must provide users with a way to export data. You can import that data and convince others to overcome the network effect and do the same.

Theoretically, things like Diaspora, Friendica, Hubzilla do exist, but transforming and marshalling the potentially incompatible data is an extra hurdle. In order to migrate, users have to both overcome the network effect and abandon (retain in archive) the history of their activities.

[alexvoda]

Correction, it is v3 of the GPL and AGPL which addresses tivoization.

[enriquto]

> licenses didnt even arrive in the 2000 to deal with the web.

The first version of the AGPL dates from 2002.

[jenadine]

But only got accepted by the FSF from 2007. Until that point, (and I think even after that), RMS and the FSF was only concerned about the code that you run on your machine be open source (eg, the JavaScript in your browser) but the code running in some server didn't need to be open source as that did not violated the user freedom.

[davisr]

RMS and the FSF fight for free software, not open source software. There is an important semantic difference that your comment doesn't appreciate.

See: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

> The terms “free software” and “open source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values. The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.

[alexvoda]

You showcase the pedanticness that made the FSF ineffective in the last decade+. Instead of focusing on the topic about how integrating the AGPL into GNU was very slow, you sidetracked into free vs open, a topic that has been debated ad-nauseum.