I'm thinking of the possibility of Genode becoming a consumer OS platform. One benefit of Genode is that a user doesn't need to trust every single program running on his computer. If I have to run a piece of proprietary software, Genode would be my preferred platform. Also, for software that I don't have to trust, I don't care as much whether it's proprietary. I would prefer that Adobe and Autodesk port their software to Genode, especially since 3D software doesn't work well in VirtualBox. I prefer free software because it's more trustworthy, but I still use some proprietary software (e.g. Google Chrome with Flash Player).
On Dec 17, 2016 8:38 AM, "Norman Feske" <norman.feske@...1...> wrote:
Hello Ben,
Am I correct that software that doesn't link directly to any AGPLv3 code (e.g. code that just uses libc) is okay to have proprietary licenses?
this is not correct because the proprietary code would still linked to Genode in addition to the libc.
That seems to be the logical interpretation, and probably the most beneficial, as it wouldn't discourage companies from porting their software to Genode.
This statement is interesting because it raises the question of the motives and goals behind Genode. What does "most beneficial" mean? Beneficial to whom? Let me try to look at this question from different perspectives.
1. The Free Software user
For an end user who consciously uses a Free Software ecosystem, proprietary applications are not interesting because they restrict the freedom of the user. Frankly speaking, I am an example of such a user. I have not touched proprietary applications on my computer since several years. But I vividly remember the inconvenience of using opaque installers, the lack of security updates, the inability to fix bugs, or the suspicion about backdoors and vulnerabilities introduced by such applications. The argument that an operating system would be useless without proprietary applications was probably valid 15 years ago. Today, the Free Software world is so strong and diverse that this argument does not hold anymore.
2. The consumer
Many end users are neither aware nor interested in technical details. They just want to get work done, browse the web, play games, or watch movies. From the operating-system's perspective, I also see professionals (like photographers, writers, business users) in this category. A typical consumer uses the OS that comes pre-installed on the device, and accepts the inherent dependency from commercial vendors. The user does not care too much about the uppercase Freedom of software. I am sometimes such a user. E.g., when using my portable audio player, I just want to listen to music.
3. The proprietary application vendor
For a proprietary application vendor, the consumer (2) is a business case. The application vendor wants to create and distribute applications with as little costs as possible and sell them to the consumer at the highest price possible. The latter would not be easily possible if the application vendor published its own "intellectual property" to everyone for free. Hence, the applications tend to stay proprietary to uphold the business case. The application vendor has to consider expenses like paid-for development tools, licenses of commercial libraries, or app-store fees as cost factors. It is clear that proprietary application vendors welcome liberally licensed open-source libraries or platforms for hosting and distributing proprietary software at no costs.
4. The proprietary platform vendor
A vendor may use Genode as the basis of a proprietary platform, for example an appliance designated for a specific market. But such a platform may in principle also be targeted at the consumer mass market. In order to use Genode as the basis of a proprietary platform, the platform vendor obtains a commercial license of Genode. In this case, the choice of Genode's regular open-source license is not a concern for such a platform vendor.
5. The Free Software developer
The motives of Free-Software developers are diverse. But regardless of the motives, they generally improve the lives of Free-Software users. If the software addresses consumer needs, Free-Software developers often find themselves as competing with proprietary applications.
Of course, the categories are not clear-cut. But they help to address two questions: (1) Who would benefit from the ability to host proprietary applications on top of the open-source Genode system, and (2) whom do we want to cater with the open-source license of Genode?
Regarding question (1), only the proprietary application vendor would immediately benefit, but only under the condition that Genode is a platform used by their target audience (consumers). This is of course not the case. Hence, for an application vendor, there is no business case for porting their applications to Genode at all. Instead, application vendors focus on popular end-user platforms like iOS, Android, Windows.
Regarding question (2), with Genode's open-source license, we want to cater Free-Software users and Free-Software developers in the first place. Acknowledging that the open-source Genode system is not a consumer platform as is, there is no benefit in catering the interests of proprietary application vendors with Genode's open-source license.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss consumers. I see two principle ways of how Genode can reach popularity among consumers, by becoming a consumer platform, or by consumers gravitating towards Free Software. Regarding the former, I am convinced that Genode can become a popular consumer platform only with strong commercial incentives of a platform vendor. Should a platform vendor develop such an interest, it would seek a commercial license. The funding obtained from the commercial licensing would ultimately help Genode and thereby the Free-Software community. The second direction is that consumers would buy products that are solely based on Free Software. Personally, as a Free-Software user, I find this prospect quite exciting.
Given this line of thinking, I hope that you agree that the ability to host proprietary applications on top of the open-source Genode system would not bring any tangible value. But maybe I have overlooked something? Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts.
Regards Norman
-- Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske Genode Labs
http://www.genode-labs.com · http://genode.org
Genode Labs GmbH · Amtsgericht Dresden · HRB 28424 · Sitz Dresden Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske, Christian Helmuth
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ genode-main mailing list genode-main@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genode-main
Hi Norman,
I am also sharing Nobody's POV. If proprietary vendors are unable to run their code. the genode has no interest to them. even if it would gain popularity and became most used OS we will not see native Skype or Photoshop.
Everyone understands your point and respects your licensing choice. Would it be possible to have the kernel level components stay free software but standard library to become more proprietary friendly.
in Linux for example libc is LGPL not GPL.
Best regards, ILYA
On December 17, 2016 10:42:47 AM PST, Nobody III <hungryninja101@...9...> wrote:
I'm thinking of the possibility of Genode becoming a consumer OS platform. One benefit of Genode is that a user doesn't need to trust every single program running on his computer. If I have to run a piece of proprietary software, Genode would be my preferred platform. Also, for software that I don't have to trust, I don't care as much whether it's proprietary. I would prefer that Adobe and Autodesk port their software to Genode, especially since 3D software doesn't work well in VirtualBox. I prefer free software because it's more trustworthy, but I still use some proprietary software (e.g. Google Chrome with Flash Player).
On Dec 17, 2016 8:38 AM, "Norman Feske" <norman.feske@...1...> wrote:
Hello Ben,
Am I correct that software that doesn't link directly to any AGPLv3
code
(e.g. code that just uses libc) is okay to have proprietary licenses?
this is not correct because the proprietary code would still linked to Genode in addition to the libc.
That seems to be the logical interpretation, and probably the most beneficial, as it wouldn't discourage companies from porting their software to Genode.
This statement is interesting because it raises the question of the motives and goals behind Genode. What does "most beneficial" mean? Beneficial to whom? Let me try to look at this question from different perspectives.
- The Free Software user
For an end user who consciously uses a Free Software ecosystem, proprietary applications are not interesting because they restrict the freedom of the user. Frankly speaking, I am an example of such a user. I have not touched proprietary applications on my computer since several years. But I vividly remember the inconvenience of using opaque installers, the lack of security updates, the inability to fix bugs, or the suspicion about backdoors and vulnerabilities introduced by such applications. The argument that an operating system would be useless without proprietary applications was probably valid 15 years ago. Today, the Free Software world is so strong and diverse that this argument does not hold anymore.
- The consumer
Many end users are neither aware nor interested in technical details. They just want to get work done, browse the web, play games, or watch movies. From the operating-system's perspective, I also see professionals (like photographers, writers, business users) in this category. A typical consumer uses the OS that comes pre-installed on the device, and accepts the inherent dependency from commercial vendors. The user does not care too much about the uppercase Freedom of software. I am sometimes such a user. E.g., when using my portable audio player, I just want to listen to music.
- The proprietary application vendor
For a proprietary application vendor, the consumer (2) is a business case. The application vendor wants to create and distribute applications with as little costs as possible and sell them to the consumer at the highest price possible. The latter would not be easily possible if the application vendor published its own "intellectual property" to everyone for free. Hence, the applications tend to stay proprietary to uphold the business case. The application vendor has to consider expenses like paid-for development tools, licenses of commercial libraries, or app-store fees as cost factors. It is clear that proprietary application vendors welcome liberally licensed open-source libraries or platforms for hosting and distributing proprietary software at no costs.
- The proprietary platform vendor
A vendor may use Genode as the basis of a proprietary platform, for example an appliance designated for a specific market. But such a platform may in principle also be targeted at the consumer mass market. In order to use Genode as the basis of a proprietary platform, the platform vendor obtains a commercial license of Genode. In this case, the choice of Genode's regular open-source license is not a concern for such a platform vendor.
- The Free Software developer
The motives of Free-Software developers are diverse. But regardless of the motives, they generally improve the lives of Free-Software users. If the software addresses consumer needs, Free-Software developers often find themselves as competing with proprietary applications.
Of course, the categories are not clear-cut. But they help to address two questions: (1) Who would benefit from the ability to host proprietary applications on top of the open-source Genode system, and (2) whom do we want to cater with the open-source license of Genode?
Regarding question (1), only the proprietary application vendor would immediately benefit, but only under the condition that Genode is a platform used by their target audience (consumers). This is of course not the case. Hence, for an application vendor, there is no business case for porting their applications to Genode at all. Instead, application vendors focus on popular end-user platforms like iOS, Android, Windows.
Regarding question (2), with Genode's open-source license, we want to cater Free-Software users and Free-Software developers in the first place. Acknowledging that the open-source Genode system is not a consumer platform as is, there is no benefit in catering the interests of proprietary application vendors with Genode's open-source license.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss consumers. I see two principle ways of how Genode can reach popularity among consumers, by becoming a consumer platform, or by consumers gravitating towards Free Software. Regarding the former, I am convinced that Genode can become a popular consumer platform only with strong commercial incentives of a platform vendor. Should a platform vendor develop such an interest, it would seek a commercial license. The funding obtained from the commercial licensing would ultimately help Genode and thereby the Free-Software community. The second direction is that consumers would buy products that are solely based on Free Software. Personally, as a Free-Software user, I find this prospect quite exciting.
Given this line of thinking, I hope that you agree that the ability to host proprietary applications on top of the open-source Genode system would not bring any tangible value. But maybe I have overlooked something? Please don't hesitate to share your thoughts.
Regards Norman
-- Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske Genode Labs
http://www.genode-labs.com · http://genode.org
Genode Labs GmbH · Amtsgericht Dresden · HRB 28424 · Sitz Dresden Geschäftsführer: Dr.-Ing. Norman Feske, Christian Helmuth
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ genode-main mailing list genode-main@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genode-main
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
genode-main mailing list genode-main@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/genode-main
Hello Ilya,
the discussion has largely deviated from the original topic, which is Genode's move from GPLv2 to AGPLv3. Please note that the relationship of proprietary software and Genode remains untouched by Genode's license change.
Even though I am little afraid of the discussion getting further derailed, I don't want to leave your remarks unanswered.
I am also sharing Nobody's POV. If proprietary vendors are unable to run their code. the genode has no interest to them. even if it would gain popularity and became most used OS we will not see native Skype or Photoshop.
You are mixing up cause and effect. As I noted in my previous posting, proprietary application vendors target their applications at consumer platforms, they don't create consumer platforms.
Since Genode is not a consumer platform, it is uninteresting for proprietary application vendors. The same is evident in the GNU/Linux world. In contrast to, let's say Android, iOS, or Windows, GNU/Linux is _not_ a consumer platform. So Adobe does not make Photoshop available on GNU/Linux.
Consumer platforms are generally not created by grassroots movements. They don't happen to exist by chance, but they are planned products and marketed as such. Unless a platform vendor pursues the creation of a new consumer platform based in Genode as a product, the discussion about accommodating proprietary software with the open-source Genode system remains moot. It does not solve any problem.
Everyone understands your point and respects your licensing choice. Would it be possible to have the kernel level components stay free software but standard library to become more proprietary friendly.
in Linux for example libc is LGPL not GPL.
This would be both impossible and wrong.
It would be impossible because there is no reasonable distinction between kernel-level components and other components on Genode. Given Genode's flexible architecture, even the attempt to draw a line would be futile. Capturing this attempt in the form of legal terms would result in a convoluted license full of heuristics (and thereby loopholes).
But even if it was possible, it would contradict with the position I stated earlier:
* It would dramatically weaken the effectiveness of our copyleft license because - in principle - *any* functionality could be implemented in the form of proprietary code that solely uses the POSIX API.
* It would benefit no one other than proprietary application vendors. Making such a concession would help them, but neither Genode nor the Free-Software community at large.
* It would undermine the dual-licensing business model of Genode Labs and thereby the funding source of Genode's development.
Still, the world is not black and white. There are certainly cases where proprietary software on top of Genode makes sense. Let me give you two examples:
A consumer platform vendor wants to create a platform based on the open-source Genode system. That is, the base system is AGPLv3 and all drivers and the software stack are open. Still the vendor wants to create a distribution channel for proprietary applications (an app store) or other digital goods (games, movies). In this case, the vendor could seek an exemption from the AGPLv3 for its app-store application in exchange for letting Genode Labs participate in the commercial success of the consumer platform. Under this model, Genode would indirectly benefit from the proprietary application vendors. So an exemption is granted for a tangible benefit for Genode.
As another example, for some software the source code may got lost. So it becomes technically impossible to comply with the AGPLv3. The ability to combine such software (e.g., "abandonware") with Genode should not pose a problem.
That said, both stories are very different. I think it is impossible to cover such a variety of corner cases in generically applicable legal terms like our linking-exception clause. They should instead be considered on a case-by-case basis. If confronted with such cases, I see it as the responsibility of Genode Labs to take even-handed decisions. Frankly speaking - looking at the past 8 years - I don't foresee that happening too much.
Regards Norman
A consumer platform vendor wants to create a platform based on the open-source Genode system. That is, the base system is AGPLv3 and all drivers and the software stack are open. Still the vendor wants to create a distribution channel for proprietary applications (an app store) or other digital goods (games, movies). In this case, the vendor could seek an exemption from the AGPLv3 for its app-store application in exchange for letting Genode Labs participate in the commercial success of the consumer platform. Under this model, Genode would indirectly benefit from the proprietary application vendors. So an exemption is granted for a tangible benefit for Genode.
As another example, for some software the source code may got lost. So it becomes technically impossible to comply with the AGPLv3. The ability to combine such software (e.g., "abandonware") with Genode should not pose a problem.
there is a common practice for hardware/software complex developments in Linux world. Simple example: Ebooks from SONY. The SONY uses Linux kernel and minimal runtime for ebook boostrapping. On top of this open source software, Sony develops own proprietary software (in fact, based on java). In accordance with licenses, SONY publishes all sources, except, of course, own proprietary. This is very simple and profitable. The community could have an ability to run own software instead of proprietary, SONY decreases costs and significant decreases time-to-market, license trolls do not have an effect on the SONY. Everyone is happy.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:55:25PM +0100, Norman Feske wrote:
Hello Ilya,
Jookia here, not a direct reply.
the discussion has largely deviated from the original topic, which is Genode's move from GPLv2 to AGPLv3. Please note that the relationship of proprietary software and Genode remains untouched by Genode's license change.
Even though I am little afraid of the discussion getting further derailed, I don't want to leave your remarks unanswered.
Apologies for starting this derail. I just want to say that I truly admire the extent Genode has taken to push for free software, and it's changed my thinking in a lot of it. I think actions speak louder than words, but it can be confusing when a lot of the times dual-licensing is used against the community for companies to effectively get free developers.
My primary concern is that I don't want to see a situation where it turns out Genode Labs and the community are at odds over a fork or distribution that takes off but can't be dual-licensed or otherwise enter this business model.
Regards Norman
Jookia.
-
ILYA Khlopotov -
Jookia -
Nobody III -
Norman Feske -
Vasily A. Sartakov