[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/tech/ - Technology

"Technology reveals the active relation of man to nature"
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix

IRC Chat

Pleroma

Mumble

Telegram

Discord



File: 1675975075458.jpg (554.45 KB, 1200x1200, 15.jpg)

 No.11924

Was wondering how the fuck is Linux kernel GPL licensed and at the same time is used to make profit..

from the Linux kernel licensing rules
>Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.
>The User-space API (UAPI) header files, which describe the interface of user-space programs to the kernel are a special case. According to the note in the kernel COPYING file, the syscall interface is a clear boundary, which does not extend the GPL requirements to any software which uses it to communicate with the kernel. Because the UAPI headers must be includable into any source files which create an executable running on the Linux kernel, the exception must be documented by a special license expression.

What's the point of using the GPL license then when you castrated it so, mr. Torvalds? Use the fucking BSD license then, what's the problem?

Also, I never understood how this dual license scheme is supposed to work from the point of the system of law. How is the same software can be under two contradictory licenses at the same time? the fuck?
>>

 No.11925

I thought they received donations.
Also companies that utilize the Linux kernel like Google are required legally to give profits to companies like cononical
>>

 No.11926

File: 1676023824595.jpg (71.37 KB, 590x800, saint ignucious.jpg)

>>11924
To simplify things, the primary purpose of the GPL is to prevent enclosure.

In the context of a capitalist system that means free open source licensed software falls under the category of competitive markets. While the proprietary licenses are distribution monopolies without market competition.

Within the capitalist context the main difference between a Permissive license and FOSS licenses is whether you care about the projects future. If you license the code in GPL you make it clear that you are committed to keeping it available and more people will contribute code because they have an assurance that the project won't just one day be flipped to proprietary and shut them out. While a permissive license means you don't really care about what happens to the code.

From a legal point of view the GPL is enforceable, but many projects choose not to enforce it even when their code gets ripped off unless it's something that is threatening the project or free software. It's mainly about like minded people who want to contribute code to free-software giving them selves permission to do so, and less about punishment. Also all the companies that violate the GPL remove their ability to sue an open source project because they risk being forced to opensource all their code in retaliation.

Profits don't come from software licenses, profits come from exploiting labor-power, extracting surplus value and realizing it in market exchange.

There is also the Stallman aspect that GPLed software tends to be more ethical, because if people can fork your project if you put malicious stuff in it.

Now to your main question about the dual licenses.
This is about corporate bureaucracy being paranoid about the gpl """infecting""" their other code.
The practical effect is to create legal ambiguity.
It's not that worrisome tho because if it still has the gpl, that means it can't be closed off, even if the permissive license also enables forking into separate proprietary paths.
Think about it as the gpl-part being the main road, and some people stray into dead-ends.

If your goal was to use the GPL to make the proprietarians see the light, that wasn't going to happen. Some people are just going to fall prey to the intellectual monopoly daemons. It's better to focus on spreading the word of Saint Ignucious to those that will listen. Like go on Github and talk to software creators that might have just chosen the standard MIT license and try to convince them to GPL up.
>>

 No.11928

>>11926
>In the context of a capitalist system that means free open source licensed software falls under the category of competitive markets. While the proprietary licenses are distribution monopolies without market competition.
that doesn't make much sense
free shit is outside the market
there is no market without profits
proprietary software, on the other hand, is sold on the market and is subject to market competition

>From a legal point of view the GPL is enforceable, but many projects choose not to enforce it even when their code gets ripped off unless it's something that is threatening the project or free software.

I know of at least one example of GPL being enforced - Lynksys with its firmware for wireless routers.

<In June 2003 some folks on the Linux Kernel Mailing List sniffed around the WRT54G and found that its firmware was based on Linux components. Because Linux is released under the GNU General Public License, or GPL, the terms of the license obliged Linksys to make available the source code to the WRT54G firmware. As most router firmware is proprietary code, vendors have no such obligation. It remains unclear whether Linksys was aware of the WRT54G’s Linux lineage, and its associated source requirements, at the time they released the router. But ultimately, under outside pressure to deliver on their legal obligation under the GPL, Linksys open sourced the WRT54G firmware in July 2003.


That's what piqued my interest in this topic - how come this is not more widespread seeing as linux kernel is used in many commercial products? Seems like the deciding factor was that Lynksys didn't know that they were using gpled components.

Also, I know some organizations provide legal support to projects that want to enforce their gpl license.

>It's mainly about like minded people who want to contribute code to free-software giving them selves permission to do so, and less about punishment.

you can contribute to open source with BSD and MIT licenses
punishment is what differentiates GPL from the other open source licenses as far as I can tell
that's why it is referred to as a non-free license by the debian for example

>Profits don't come from software licenses, profits come from exploiting labor-power, extracting surplus value and realizing it in market exchange.

writing and maintaining software requires labor
with permissive open source license capitalists can have a 100% exploitation rate - all surplus value goes to capitalist

>This is about corporate bureaucracy being paranoid about the gpl """infecting""" their other code.

Again, seeing Lynksys case this is not paranoid at all.

>The practical effect is to create legal ambiguity.

How does it work? GPL license requires that modifications must be published under the same license. But at the same time dual license means you can take a gpled software, modify it, and then close the source.
This is a contradiction and a violations of the GPL license.

>It's not that worrisome tho because if it still has the gpl, that means it can't be closed off, even if the permissive license also enables forking into separate proprietary paths.

I don't want capitalists to profit form my labor. This is alienating.

>If your goal was to use the GPL to make the proprietarians see the light, that wasn't going to happen.

no shit lol
can't make profit off open source if there is no closed source nearby

>Some people are just going to fall prey to the intellectual monopoly daemons.

People want to accumulate capital. Nothing to do with demons.

>Like go on Github and talk to software creators that might have just chosen the standard MIT license and try to convince them to GPL up.

I'll stick to my bug reports and occasional PRs.
People go permissive because they plan to commercialize in the future.
>>

 No.11929

>>11928
>free shit is outside the market
>there is no market without profits
>proprietary software, on the other hand, is sold on the market and is subject to market competition

If you want to be extra pedantic then software in general is no longer a market commodity within capitalism because: The price of a commodity tends towards the cost of reproduction, and for software the cost of reproduction that's next to zero in all instances.
Making the software proprietary doesn't really change that because then you are charging rent for access, you would not be wrong to consider it a form of privatized taxation.
There is competition between opensource projects, but proprietary software is a monopoly game. So if you care about the market-competition aspect, you lean towards free software.

You can still sell free open source software like a commodity in the classical sense, where people pay money to reduce material scarcity. And that's via crowd funding. The scarcity is when a program does not exist, and then people crowd fund it, to make it exist, and hence scarcity is reduced.

I know that proprietary software advocates will say that they create "artificial scarcity", but that's just them trying to make you ignore that it's just a toll-booth. Once Software exists there is no more material scarcity.

From a Marxist perspective, proprietary software is a state granted distribution monopoly, and that's closer to feudal relations of production than the capitalist mode of production. Software might also count as part of the general intellect of society.
>>

 No.11931

File: 1676069399858.jpg (674.87 KB, 1500x1500, 16.jpg)

>>11929
>If you want to be extra pedantic then software in general is no longer a market commodity within capitalism because: The price of a commodity tends towards the cost of reproduction, and for software the cost of reproduction that's next to zero in all instances.
Software still has a price of production and a labor cost associated with it. So it is a commodity. In a "perfect" market prices would gravitate towards labor values required to reproduce a commodity at the given industry average conditions of production. But various barriers to reproduction are the norm for capitalism, not exception - trademarks is a good example. So software is not out of the ordinary in this regard.

>Making the software proprietary doesn't really change that because then you are charging rent for access, you would not be wrong to consider it a form of privatized taxation.

No, you are charging money for a commodity that has a value and a price of production. No difference.
You "charge rent for access" to ordinary tangible commodities too. This is just arguing semantics.

>There is competition between opensource projects

this is more like an exception, if we're talking about strictly community open-source - there are usually solitary big projects
and then there are multiple small-to-medium projects, but it is a stretch to call it a competition when they're all doing their own separate thing and there is nothing at stake

corporate opensource is another matter tho

>So if you care about the market-competition aspect, you lean towards free software.

but there is no market lol

>The scarcity is when a program does not exist, and then people crowd fund it, to make it exist, and hence scarcity is reduced.

that's some backward ass logic
there cannot be scarcity, in a strictly economic sense, of a commodity that doesn't exit yet, that haven't been invented yet

to call any investment activity "reduction of scarcity" is oddly narrow lol

>Once Software exists there is no more material scarcity.

You seem to be stuck at statics of simple reproduction with no technological change or competition.
That's not how capitalism works.
You need to take into account nonlinear character of the cost curve of any commodity through its lifecycle - majority of costs is in the initial R&D and building phase. Software just has no or very little costs afterwards relative to the traditional tangible commodities.
Every commodity has a lifecycle - that's how capitalism goes around from one extended reproduction cycle to another through competition.

>From a Marxist perspective, proprietary software is a state granted distribution monopoly, and that's closer to feudal relations of production than the capitalist mode of production.

property rights are state granted monopoly on a particular item of property
no different form feudalism

this is just splitting hairs

>Software might also count as part of the general intellect of society.

all knowledge can be counted as that
>>

 No.11932

>>11931
>if we're talking about strictly community open-source - there are usually solitary big projects
well, maybe DEs is an exception, tho they have corporate involvement
Gnome - redhat, canonical
KDE - suse, to a lesser degree

tho I dunno if they are competing, at least not as a naked DE, maybe as distribution? tho you need to compete for *something*, to optimize against this *something*
>>

 No.11933

>>11931
I dunno who you are but I love you for posting these kawaii anime pngs.
>>

 No.11934

>>11931
>Software still has a price of production and a labor cost associated with it. So it is a commodity.
Not necessarily, capital-goods also have production and a labor cost associated with it
The Software as the 1s and 0s stored on a computer it self is not the commodity, the commodity is direction over the creation of the software.
The people who pay for a software commodity are directing what software gets created. Like with crowd funding. Once a piece of software is created it has almost 0 exchange value in a market with competing producers because that is determined by the cost of reproduction (more on that later). If you install your Linux-distro and navigate to the software-shop/app-hub/package-manager (what ever thing installs new programs), it should offer you a market place where you can help fund new software projects and partially completed ones. The programs that have already been produced would serve as proof of skill for the software devs.

>In a "perfect" market prices would gravitate towards labor values required to reproduce a commodity at the given industry average conditions of production.

That is incorrect in a theoretic perfect market with perfect competition, market prices would exactly equal labor values required to reproduce a commodity.
In an actually existing market, prices would (as you put it) gravitate towards labor values required to reproduce a commodity, but never quite match it.
If they don't gravitate thusly, you have monopoly-market pricing.

<proprietary software

>No, you are charging money for a commodity that has a value and a price of production. No difference.
Exchange value in a market is determined by the cost of reproduction, not the cost of production. If market prices were determined by the cost of production that would mean capitalists could raise their prices if they use more labor to produce something at higher cost. Capitalism is a stupid system but it's not that stupid.
You can't actually buy proprietary software. If you read the fine-print on any of them they always say that you only pay for a user-license. Go to Microsoft's website and read what they say. You pay for a license-key that grants you the use of windows, you're not buying windows, unless you have enough gazillions to buy out Bill Gates and his shareholder-buddies.
If you buy a commodity you have control over it. But you don't get control over proprietary software you have a license-key for. So that's clearly just renting something, not buying it.

>You "charge rent for access" to ordinary tangible commodities too.

If you charge rent to access something, it's not a commodity it's capital.
Like those new electric cars where you have to pay a subscription for features like a seat-warmer, better acceleration or more battery range, those cars are not commodities either, those cars are capital owned and controlled by the car company.
You did not participate in commodity exchange if you don't control the thing you bought.

I consider free-software to retain elements of market competition. For example the Linux software eco-system has lots of competing linux distributions, but in the Windows ecosystem or the Mac ecosystem, there's basically just one option either Windows or MacOs respectively. The reason for this is that proprietary software is based on an intellectual distribution monopoly. That economic structure just spawns more monopoly structures. Every category of proprietary software is fated to become like that. I know that capitalist markets have a tendency to generate monopolies on their own, however for proprietary software it's more than just the capitalist tendency, it's hard-coded in as the only possible outcome.

I think a growing section of the tech sector just generates capital, but no commodities.
>>

 No.11935

>>11931
>proprietary software is a state granted distribution monopoly
>property rights are state granted monopoly on a particular item of property
I'd argue that personal property predates state-structures and probably originated in late stage tribal-society, so that's technically not true. And a distribution monopoly is not the same as private property, even if both are granted by the state.

Intellectual "property" is a misnomer, even in bourgeois legal definitions it's not defined as property, it's defined as a monopoly on distribution.
>>

 No.11936

>>11928
>you can contribute to open source with BSD and MIT licenses
Yeah but the GPL has the insurance that it's going to stay open, so that makes it a better candidate for contributions.

>punishment is what differentiates GPL from the other open source licenses as far as I can tell

>that's why it is referred to as a non-free license
What ? the gpl doesn't punish the motion towards more FOSS software therefor it can't be characterized by punishment. If you ever had to fight with proprietary software, that very much feels like punishment. I would argue that the gpl is the license that is best at protecting freedoms so it's got to be the most free.
>>

 No.11938

File: 1676205824209.jpg (380.45 KB, 1200x1200, 14.jpg)

>>11934
>Not necessarily, capital-goods also have production and a labor cost associated with it
capital goods are commodities in capitalism lol
it's one of its fundamental characteristics

>The Software as the 1s and 0s stored on a computer it self is not the commodity, the commodity is direction over the creation of the software.

commodity is an item of ownership that gets sold
your apartment that you rent is a commodity
the movie you rent is a commodity

>The people who pay for a software commodity are directing what software gets created.

voting with your wallet huh? I remember when people have voted for the new UI in windows vista lol

>Like with crowd funding.

do you really think that your donations to open-source entitle you to *anything*?
your donations are just that - donations, no strings attached

way to be a little entitled bitch
want to "direct"? get involved - contribute, maintain, bug report

>Once a piece of software is created it has almost 0 exchange value in a market with competing producers because that is determined by the cost of reproduction

Costs of reproduction include the initial investment and R&D costs, it's not just the marginal cost of the next item lol

>If you install your Linux-distro and navigate to the software-shop/app-hub/package-manager (what ever thing installs new programs), it should offer you a market place where you can help fund new software projects and partially completed ones.

wat
first time I hear about this, is this an ubuntu thing?

but then again, I install my programs from the command line..

>The programs that have already been produced would serve as proof of skill for the software devs.

I try to contribute to programs that I personally use. Not with money, but with actual effort.

>That is incorrect in a theoretic perfect market with perfect competition, market prices would exactly equal labor values required to reproduce a commodity.

yep, my bad

>Exchange value in a market is determined by the cost of reproduction, not the cost of production. If market prices were determined by the cost of production that would mean capitalists could raise their prices if they use more labor to produce something at higher cost.

The same thing. Cost of reproduction - the average cost of production in an industry. That's why individual capitalists can't voluntary raise the prices as their costs rise.

>You can't actually buy proprietary software.

you obviously can

>If you read the fine-print on any of them they always say that you only pay for a user-license.

rented item is a commodity

>You pay for a license-key that grants you the use of windows, you're not buying windows

no shit mr obvious
ownership is a social relation, it is not inherent in the tangible goods

>If you buy a commodity you have control over it.

you phone is a "commodity" as you define it
you don't control shit

just as you didn't control your radio receiver in the past

>If you charge rent to access something, it's not a commodity it's capital.

retarded
you telling me telephone network is not a commodity? you electric power grid?
Capital good is defined by its relation to the production process. Not whether it is rented or not.

>Like those new electric cars where you have to pay a subscription for features like a seat-warmer, better acceleration or more battery range, those cars are not commodities either, those cars are capital owned and controlled by the car company.

retarded 2x

services are not commodities now and not "proper capitalism" lol

>You did not participate in commodity exchange if you don't control the thing you bought.

petty bourgeois idealism

>I consider free-software to retain elements of market competition. For example the Linux software eco-system has lots of competing linux distributions

how are they "competing"?
you wanna tell me gentoo is competing with arch? lol

people compete for "something", usually for some wealth gain, directly or by proxy

the only case you can make is - they are competing for donations or corporate money
I can't think of even one open-source project that has this modus operandi
even ubuntu is now balls deep into servers and IoT and this is where it makes money
fedora is just a testing ground for redhat
opensuse is the same for suse

others are doing their own thing not chasing "customers"

>The reason for this is that proprietary software is based on an intellectual distribution monopoly.

more petty bourgeois idealisms
any property right is a state granted monopoly

>>11935
>I'd argue that personal property predates state-structures and probably originated in late stage tribal-society, so that's technically not true.
property is a social relation
it's relation not to inanimate objects, but to other people

no property right if there are no people around

>And a distribution monopoly is not the same as private property, even if both are granted by the state.

you just invented your "distribution monopoly" as different from the "proper" property

newsflash, every property right is a monopoly

>>11936
>the gpl doesn't punish the motion towards more FOSS software therefor it can't be characterized by punishment
GPL is a restrictive license. It prohibits under the threat of legal action, under the threat of force.
That's why it is classifieds as "non-free"
It restricts the freedom of the developer to do what he wants with his modifications under the threat of force.

>I would argue that the gpl is the license that is best at protecting freedoms so it's got to be the most free.

you are free to argue your case on the debian mailing list, you will not be the first
this horse has been beaten to death already
>>

 No.11939

>>11938
Even Marxists as far back as Lenin and Marx himself seem to treat commodities and capital as different categories. Why do you think it's not ?

If you rent an apartment you can't sell it, so according to your minimal definition of commodity (sellable ownable items) it's not.

In a market economy costs of reproduction don't include the R&D costs. It costs less to copy an existing product than to design one from scratch. It's one of the contradictions of capitalism. They tried to solve it with legal crap like patents but those just ended up as legal weapons and instruments to delay the implementation of technology, solving nothing just adding new contradictions.

>wat first time I hear about this

The crowd funding interface in the package manager is just a feature request.
Think about how software could be a commodity by looking at what is actually worth paying for if we avoid unnecessary crap. So no reliance on ideological convictions that for example makes some people donate money to FOSS projects. And of course no proprietary bullshit like typing in a registration key to unlock Digital Retardation Management, as an exercise of jumping through hoops for the enjoyment of corporate psychopaths. I think that many more people would pay for foss-software if it could be pre-ordered via crowd funding. And yes you should be able to do that via the command line terminal.

>I try to contribute to programs that I personally use. Not with money, but with actual effort.

Yes because that's non-alienated labor, but it is unlikely that you would be able to do that as your full time job until we reach higher stage socialism.

>you obviously can buy proprietary software.

Yeah but that means buying out the proprietary intellectual monopoly holder.
If you buy a license-key for proprietary software that's like buying a ticket to visit the amusement park. That's not the same as buying the amusement park.

>you telling me the telephone network or electric power grid is not a commodity?

Yes those are not commodities those are natural monopolies. Technically you could have competing power and telephone cables but that was tried and proved to be unworkable, and hence we treat utilities like natural monopolies.

>controlling your stuff is petty bourgeois idealism

The proletariat wants to control their stuff too.

>you just invented your "distribution monopoly" as different from the "proper" property

The capitalist invented this, they even use the exact expression in their legal documents. They don't think it's property, why should we ? They only say it's property in ideological propaganda material. Consider if intellectual monopolies were property it would mean somebody owns "other people aren't allowed to do stuff", like distribute copies of information. Extending titles of ownership to prohibition is too retarded even for the bourgeoisie. Because if they ever open that box, everything the bourgeoisie wants to do could become a prohibition that somebody owns.
>>

 No.11940

>>11938
>GPL is a restrictive license.
It doesn't restrict people in any way that want to make foss software
It prevents the imposition of restrictions that could interfere with the freedom of making foss software, this is the highest form of nonrestrictive.

If you have so called "permissive licenses" those entail the possibility that proprietary restrictions could be added in the future.
how is that not considered more restrictive ? What a crazy world, where words are being used in the opposite way.

>That's why it is classifieds as "non-free"

The GPL protects the 4 important freedoms of free software, that's why it's the most free license.

>you are free to argue your case on the debian mailing list, you will not be the first

Does that mean somebody is trying to undermine Debian ?
>>

 No.11941

File: 1676374481241.png (93.03 KB, 600x507, whoah.png)

>it's another concern-troll-tries-to-convince-anon-that-akshually-copyleft-is-bad thread
Whoa, haven't seen this in a while.
>>

 No.11942

>>11939
>Even Marxists as far back as Lenin and Marx himself seem to treat commodities and capital as different categories.
Liar. Post source. Of course, you can't because they never said anything of the kind. Capital is composed entirely of commodities–money, labor-power, means of production

Has anyone else noticed a lot of total misrepresentations of what capital is around here lately? I have to wonder if it is a part of a concerted effort to prevent people from understanding the concept.
>>

 No.11943

>>11942
You uyghurs are like lay Christians arguing over whether Protestantism or Catholicism is the truth.
>>

 No.11944

>>11943
You and your appeal to ignorance can piss off.
>>

 No.11947

>>11944
>Emotional, off the handle response
Checks out
>>

 No.11949

>>11942
>Has anyone else noticed a lot of total misrepresentations of what capital is around here lately?
And other misrepresentations about what Marx said or other leftist history. It almost seems like someone is attempting to muddy the waters.
>>

 No.11950

>>11949
What did Marx say about Mexicans, Slavs Jews, and Blacks, comrade? Let's not muddy waters by deviating from the great word of Marx?
>>

 No.11951

>>11942
Lenin clearly distinguishes between capital and commodities in his book "Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism"
>>

 No.11953

>>11924
>use le BSD
cringe
>>

 No.11954

File: 1676592766691.pdf (3.3 MB, 67x118, Capital1.pdf)

>>11949
Yeah, it very much looks like that. Stuff like >>11934 uses terms in such a just plain wrong way that I have to wonder if it isn't just AI.
>>11950
That they shouldn't be enslaved. Because that was a thing back then.
>>11951
Sauce? You can do it. Lenin's little books are laid out like text books and are quotable unlike Capital. To read it from Marx, look at Chapter 4, pages 104-108.
>>

 No.11955

>>11954
>I have to wonder if it isn't just AI.
kek when you're such a theorylet that you have to dehumanize other people.

Unique IPs: 15

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]