[Marxism] What's in a name? Linux vs. Stallman's GNU/Linux

Clay Claiborne clayclai at gmail.com
Wed Jan 1 11:24:22 MST 2014


Since you seem to thing you know what you are talking about, can you tell
me which licenses are OSS and which are GNU. I'm interest in the ones you
thing apply to only one or the other but not both.

You talk about "unpaid labor" but I call it contributed labor donated to
anyone who wants to use it, including China, Cuba, Brazil and for profit
companies.

What do you make of the OSS movement getting tech companies to pay for
labor that they don't copyright, that they instead copyleft? This amounts
to billion on dollars over the past few years. What do you make of that?
Why do they do it?

Also what makes you think the political and moral aspects of OSS were lost
with the name change?

Please address the question of social appropriation vs. private
appropriation and how you think that has changed from Free Software to OSS,
because as a Marxist I don't think the "political and moral aspects" of
FOSS is based on air, good wishes or RMS, its based on a property relation
that stands in complete opposition to private intellectual property.

Also tell me which of the four principles of free software that RMS laid
out that are violated by OSS.

For reference:

The Open Source Definition
> Introduction
>
> Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution
> terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
> 1. Free Redistribution
>
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
> programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
> royalty or other fee for such sale.
> 2. Source Code
>
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
> source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not
> distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of
> obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost
> preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code
> must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
> Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such
> as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
> 3. Derived Works
>
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
> them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
> software.
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
> form *only* if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
> the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
> license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified
> source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different
> name or version number from the original software.
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
>
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
> from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
> 7. Distribution of License
>
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
> is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by
> those parties.
> 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
>
> The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being
> part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted
> from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the
> program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should
> have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the
> original software distribution.
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
>
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must
> not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be
> open-source software.
> 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
>
> No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology
> or style of interface.
>


>

Clay Claiborne, Director
Vietnam: American Holocaust <http://VietnamAmericanHolocaust.com>
Linux Beach Productions
Venice, CA 90291
(310) 581-1536

Read my blogs at the Linux Beach <http://claysbeach.blogspot.com/>
<http://wlcentral.org/user/2965/track>


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Tristan Sloughter <
tristan.sloughter at gmail.com> wrote:

> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
>
> There very much is a difference between free software and open source --
> while OSS licenses are compatible with the GPL, the freedoms provided
> vary. And Stallman, I believe, has been proven right that removing the
> political and moral aspect of free software would be a lose for us.
>
> I think there could be an argument made that open source winning out
> also relates to tech companies expecting unpaid labor as well.
>
> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at:
> http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/clayclai%40gmail.com
>



More information about the Marxism mailing list