The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud. As the integration of the phone and the cloud becomes more central, it becomes impossible for open source to provide a matching experience. The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution. But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact.
> The real issue is that the open source world doesn't have an answer to the rise of the cloud.
Nonsense. you're speaking as though open-source and cloud storage are somehow related or in competition. But they're orthogonal -- one can obviously make open-source applications available from the cloud, and you can construct the cloud's infrastructure out of open-source elements.
> The open source movement was born when the pendulum was swinging from the centralized mainframe to the PC revolution.
That's true, but the two were coincidental and unrelated. Correlation doesn't prove causation.
> But now as the pendulum is swinging back to centralized computing there will be fewer chances for small individualistic rebels to make an impact.
Wait, what? How does open-source relate to centralized computing? For that matter, how does cloud storage relate to centralized computing? It's not as though cloud storage requires a central repository, any more than the Internet must be a central repository in order to function.
Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source.
"Just one example: Linux (a) dominates the Internet's servers and (b) is open-source."
...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.
Furthermore, while it is true that quite a bit of web services and "cloud computing" was built with free software, the effect is very different than distributing free software on desktops. If you do not like some new feature of the Linux kernel, you can just not use it -- nobody forces you to upgrade, and in extreme cases it is possible to fork the project. On the other hand, if you do not like a new feature in Facebook...tough luck, you have no authority. Similarly, if you want a new feature in the Linux kernel, you can add it -- maybe Linus won't merge it with the official source, but you can still have the feature and distribute it to others. Your next great idea for a GMail feature is irrelevant, because you cannot add features to GMail.
> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret ...
Are you serious? The entire Linux kernel is open-source and public (and it is available here: https://www.kernel.org/). Most programs delivered along with the kernel are also open-source. Many Linux distributors of large assemblages of code refuse to include anything that isn't open-source.
You are ignoring the long list of companies that modify the Linux kernel for their own purposes, never releasing their changes, and sometimes using their modified kernel on a web server that runs web apps for their users. As long as they are not distributing their modified kernel to anyone they can keep their changes secret.
For the same reason the GPLv2 has nothing to say about patents, even though patents are used to do the kinds of things the GPL was meant to prevent.
The thing to keep in mind is that the changes that web companies make to free software are not usually for internal consumption. The changes are user-facing -- but the software is delivered via the web, rather than distributed to the users, and so the web company never triggers any requirement to make their changes available. The GPL does allow this, but it is not in the spirit of the GPL, and the Affero GPL was created to deal with this problem.
I'm not sure that's true (I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to the exact specifics of the GPL). Without institutions protecting IP (like patents, trademarks, copyright) the GPL couldn't exist, it's just a hack on top of IP.
I agree that it's not in the spirit of the GPL, but they did explicitly not add in sections about that in the GPLv3. The v2 FAQ mentioned that they were considering adding in web-based applications, but the v3 FAQ says it's still okay, but if you're writing software and want to make it not okay, use the AGPL.
> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors. That is exactly the sort of the thing the GPL was meant to prevent.
It's false. Code that is modified and then never released is not what the GPL was meant to prevent.
It is not false in the context of the web being built on free software. The GPL is meant to prevent a situation where free software is used to create proprietary software that denies its users their freedom. In the case of web companies modifying free software and presenting their modified software to users as a web app, that is exactly what happens, and it is only because of a loophole that it does happen. The Affero GPL was created to address this particular loophole.
Along with the point you've just made, I thought about this after my last post, related to the difference between a tablet and the cloud. If a company changes the Linux kernel or an open-source application and includes it in their mobile device, they have to release the source on demand. As intended. (And there have been a number of high-profile cases in which companies tried to avoid releasing source.)
But if they change the Linux kernel or an open-source server utility and put it on their cloud server, they don't. An unintended outcome, and one that makes the cloud different than what came before it.
So I concede that the cloud is different, and it does affect the idea of open-source.
The line is drawn if and when a client machine downloads an open-source app from the cloud. If that never happens, then there's no requirement to release source.
> ...and untold millions of lines of changes to the Linux kernel are kept secret and are not at all available to other Linux users or even to Linux contributors
By the people who made the changes but never had to release them, by NDAs that people sign before they work for web companies, etc. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says, "All your changes must be released." What it says is that if you give a modified version to another person, your changes must be GPL'd also. Since web companies do not give modified versions of the kernel to others, they are not in any way obligated to make their changes available to others, and more often than not they do not make those changes available.
Remember, recipients of GPL code (companies in this case) are not affected by the terms of the GPL until they redistribute the code themselves, until then they can add proprietary code all they want, run it on servers and never release a thing. They are completely free to USE the code however they wish.
So in this example, no cloud company has to release changes to their running linux kernel because it was never distributed to end users, or at all.
Same for all other GPL code running on servers, users of the service, loading web pages and using APIs, are not recipients of the code under the GPL, so they have no rights under the license.
If some company decides their changes to the kernel, or nginx, or apache, or php can be released because it won't destroy their business, they frequently do so. Otherwise you'll never hear about it and changes silently remain secret.
No, there is no proprietary code in the official kernel as distributed on kernel.org. There is a very long list of companies that have their own version of the kernel, which they keep to themselves, which contains their own proprietary changes, and which they never distribute to anyone else. There is no requirement whatsoever that you give your changes to Linux to anyone, there is only a requirement that your changes be GPL'd if you do choose to distribute them.
There are two free software answers to "the cloud:"
1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services and local software. This is a compromise that allows cloud services to continue to be proprietary while not locking users in to any one particular service or platform.
2. The Affero GPL, which requires service providers to make their source available to their users.
Personally I think that (1) is not only a more realistic option, but in the long run a more beneficial option for users.
1. Open APIs that allow useful, meaningful, and complete interoperability between different services
Also: competition. A lot of people only put up with things Facebook, Google, and Apple get up to because they feel there's no viable alternative that meets their needs. A climate that fosters competition better will encourage upstarts.
