[minot]

> The Free Software community has made it clear from day 1 that the GPL can only achieve its goals through enforcement of copyright

We should mention when we say this, although I think it is self-evident, that the preferable alternative is reducing the scope of copyright across the board -- be it with shorter time frames (I'd argue even twenty years total is too long!) or some other means.

To programmers and developers, remember the core of free software is NOT the commercial developer / programmer and it NEVER has been. The core is always the user and what they need. This is so important that it needs to be repeated every time someone talks about free software because free software is NOT about open source. Open source code is a necessary part of free software but it is NOT sufficient.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[koolala]

We have to fight for the AI and AI Users! They are the future! They deserve access to their own weights!

[lukan]

"The core is always the user and what they need."

Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s

I agree that user centric developement should be the goal, but I hardly see it implemented. Free software programmers almost allways solved their own needs first, which is alright, because usually no one paid them to serve other peoples needs, but I seldom see this goal met.

[lelanthran]

You are confusing "software UX" with "software freedom".

The primary consideration is freedom for the user. Ease-of-use for the user is a different consideration.

[lukan]

"The core is always the user and what they need."

I was referring to this and the main thing users need, is software they can use to solve their problems. If they have to study IT to do so, or hire programmers first, then this would be primarily a new (and big) problem to them, before they even can start working on their problem.

[thwarted]

Free software isn't about solving your problems, it's about solving mine and enabling you, and others, to solve yours, and theirs. It's about if I've been generous enough to give, anyone who takes can't undermine my generosity by not also sharing. You having a problem that isn't solved by what I've made available, or is bigger/different than the problem I was solving, isn't my problem to solve or even know about. If you want to make your problem mine to solve, you can hire me. Everyone has problems, some of those problems are exactly the same, some of them overlap, and some are completely disjoint. If we have the same problem and my software is useful to solve that problem, you are welcome to use it, but you may find out that the problem I set out to solve for me does not exactly overlap with your problem.

[xigoi]

You certainly don’t need to study IT to use Linux.

[lukan]

Well, let's put it like this. I did study IT and even I struggle at times. Or quite often, if I want to do something new. And I absolutey would have no idea, how to do anything serious, without the terminal. But a terminal is programming. So yeah, even a newb can learn to paste some commands quite quickly - but troubleshooting even trivial things, gets you into highly technical stuff very quickly. Do you consider man pages to be written beginnerfriendly?

You know, simple examples of common use cases right on top? Not my experience. I experienced it as a system written by and for hackers. And everything else an afterthought at best. I remember my first real life linux hardcore enthusiasts: "I have to free myself from the GUI"

Well, I did, but the common people won't.

[thwarted]

So your issue is that someone who solved their problem didn't solve it in a way that you want or expect? Why does your opinion about their problem matter at all? Why does it matter to the person who makes their solution available that the common people won't?

Using the terminal is not "programming". Non-programmers can use the terminal for many non-programming tasks. Imagemagick and netpbm-progs require no knowledge of programming to use, although it may require knowledge manipulating files and some graphical theory. The only difference from GIMP or Photoshop is that the UI/UX has a different efficiency metric (mainly because interactive image manipulation is more efficient when you are interacting visually). But the operations are just as discoverable: reading and navigating help text/man pages in the former (the man pages for Imagemagick and netpbm-progs are relatively decent), and reading and navigating menus and dialog boxes in the latter.

[account42]

You think troubleshooting on any other OS is less technical? Isn't my experience unless you count the OS refusing to give you information required to troubleshoot at all as user friendlyness.

[deadbunny]

Maybe their target user isn't the one you're basing your opinion of what a user is?

Take vi(m). It's not intuitive to your suggested target user and has a learning curve shaped like a cliff. So it fails to provide for what you consider a "user". However it serves it's actual target users very well.

Arch doesn't position itself towards what you have presented as a user, Mint might however as they have very different target audiences. Not everything has to be designed to the lowest common denominator.

[lukan]

"Take vi(m)."

Yeah, a code editor is by definition for developers.

The question here was about the OS in general. And it is a pretty established fact, that linux is popular with developers, but not with mainstream normal people. Unless linux comes in the shape of android, where everything linux is hidden and locked down.

[deadbunny]

Maybe read a bit further in my reply and see my second argument about actual linux distros that address your point.

[koolala]

Your describing the ultimate AI interface. They have been guarding it for decades - now is the critical moment.

If they win this fight - GPL code will be usable by all of Artifical Humanity. GPL Singularity.

[rkangel]

> Which is why gnu/linux without a terminal is totally usable and therefore accesible to the non programmer. /s

Have you used modern Fedora? I have an old Thinkpad at home that I put Fedora on last year as our "sofa" laptop for web shopping etc. I took careful note of what I needed to do to set it up and that involved nothing on the command line to get to something good that my wife could happily use (not a techie, never used Linux).

[jmholla]

Yea, the parent poster starts with a false premise. There are many Linux distros these days that laypeople can and do easily use: Ubuntu, Mint, PopOS, just to name a few.

[lukan]

False premise, well, I installed many people linux over the years and I personally use Arch. But my experience is apparently wrong.

And just because you can use something for internet, does not mean it satisfies user need in general. It satisfies some users needs. Those who need a little - those who understand the system. But the mainstreamusers in the middle .. continue to stay away for a reason. But hopefully more will invest in the change, with the forced win 11 change.

[lukan]

I did some years ago. But with using I meant more than the internet.

[Hamuko]

>The core is always the user and what they need.

Would reducing copyright duration actually help with that?

[skywhopper]

Copyright duration is not really a factor in the FSF’s actual goal, which is for software to be distributed with user-modifiable source code. Copyleft licenses are a means of achieving this through the existing copyright system with its ludicrous durations. But making copyright terms much shorter would help, yes, because any released source code or even binary files could be used, reverse-engineered, and modified without permission.

[Hamuko]

Even if you reduce copyright to a year, it still requires waiting through that time before you can actually use the code. And even if you were free to use Windows’ source code a year after release, it still wouldn’t give you access to the source code itself. Meanwhile Microsoft would be free to use any GPL code a year after its release without worrying about any licensing requirements, since they have the source code freely available.