GNU founder Stallman: ‘Open source is not free software’
siliconangle.com
siliconangle.com
For example, compare a typical flamewar comment to this:
> In practice, open source and free software are nearly equivalent, but the open source people reject our philosophy. They think it’s just fine if someone wants to write proprietary extensions to their software. So we have to differ with them.
Also, it's good to see surface issues (e.g. practicality, compatibility, etc.) reframed in terms of the Free Software philosophy. For example:
> Your question implies that software is good, even if it takes our freedom away. I don’t accept that.
Making distinctions like this can probably save an awful lot of arguing, by rephrasing things from "clearly XYZ" into "even if you don't agree with ABC, can you see that it is a valid position to take, and that XYZ makes sense in that case?" (where, for example, "XYZ" might be "Flash should be disabled").
For example, I'm often asked how I can possibly live without Facebook/Photoshop/whatever. A useful answer is that humans have survived for thousands of years without them, and I'm no different. By controlling the context of the question, something strange can seem normal or sensible.
Thankfully there is a spectrum of software available, so other people's choices and preferences (whether proprietary or not) aren't forced on everyone.
> Would you like to live without fire? More humans lived without it than with it after all.
I reframed the context too much, it became bad.
There's a fundamental problem with communications we've all experienced, or at least for those of us who tried to teach someone something:
The thing coming out of my brain isn't the same as the one entering the brains of others. Hence why teachers repeat themselves a lot.
That's not actually true, though. There's evidence that domestication of fire predates humanity as we know it.
Maybe use "vaccines" instead of "fire," but it still seems sort of missing the point to co-mingle life and death matters with Photoshop and Facebook.
It's a new technology that enhances oral storytelling and then later replaces it.
Or do you mean "predates modern man"?
That's true. I suppose the analogy to context is that the wiring of my brain isn't the same as the wiring of others, so something which seems obvious to me might make no sense to others.
Framing things can help, especially if that framing is done in the right place. For example, if I said "it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", many people would find that silly.
If I framed it badly, and said "if we don't want arbitrary code on our machines, it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", then the argument follows, but the premise seems just as silly as the original.
If I framed it better, like "if we want to run only Free Software, it's obvious that Javascript should be disabled by default", then the argument still follows, but now the premise seems like something a reasonable person might want; maybe not the listener, but they can imagine that others might want that. If not, then at least we've found the right level at which there's misunderstanding/disagreement.
This is dismissing a political movement on personal subjectivism. For Stallman or anyone who adheres to his ideology, there is nothing "unrealistic" about it.
[1]: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleH...
[2]: http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-...
The software architectures - mostly the ones close to the users - of the business and education sectors are almost full with proprietary software which tends(and tries hard) to be incompatible with alternatives, especially with FOSS. The mentality of the regular user is to use what he/she has been taught to use - freedom has been presented as too "geeky"(catch phrases like "if you're different it doesn't mean you're useful"). The educational ministries literally sold those people to brands. It might sound quite disutopic but it can get worse.
I write this because many people seem to have a misconception: that the “free software” somehow does not apply to non-copyleft (some even say non-GPL) software, but this is not the case. Software under the MIT, BSD or CC0 licenses (and even software in the public domain) are all also “free software” according to the FSF. The headline could easily be interpreted to mean the opposite, and thereby create further confusion and discord.
My 2 pedantic cents: the source code of non-GPL software can still be called free software. But binaries compiled from e.g. an MIT codebase are only free software if the sources are also available. As the recipient of an MIT-licensed binary, you do not have freedom 3 and you'll have a hard time exercising freedom 1.
There is a substantial category that this leaves out, that I wouldn't call "pathological": commercial or otherwise proprietary software where the source is provided as part of the deal. The license may allow you to recompile for different machines, modify the code for your own purposes, but not redistribute.
EDIT: I may be wrong in the sense that the "access to source" I'm talking about may not be in the "open source" category, depending on how that is defined.
Without the ability to check a program's source code, and personally compile it from that source, I am putting my hardware totally in the hands of the developer. I must trust that his program will do what it claims to do, and if it doesn't I can do absolutely nothing about it - other than threatening to take my business elsewhere or sue, which are merely the generic last resorts available for every kind of abuse or fraud. And even those will not shield me as long the program's misbehaviour goes undiscovered or unproven. It's pretty straightforward why this is a very dangerous situation when handling data of any importance.
However, if I can view and compile the source code, but not modify it, then I wouldn't say the loss of freedom is remotely comparable. If I see that the program contains objectionable code, then it is unfortunate and perhaps frustrating that my only option is to reject the program in toto, but I cannot see how I can legimately consider myself wronged. I was offered a product with all the information required to make an informed decision, the product simply wasn't good enough.
A food analogy: closed source is like having to buy food without the ability to examine its ingredients. Open-but-non-free source is like having access to the original recipe but not being allowed to take out the parts you are allergic to. It's a shame, but your health isn't in any danger.
Of course, they also "consider [all non-free software] equally unethical", so from their point of view listing the four freedoms separately or as a whole should be pure cosmetics.
They're fundamentally different for the purpose you're describing, but remember that your goal in this case is your goal. Stallman is protecting the freedom of software for any goal.
Besides, both freedoms are protected unequivocally without compromise by the definition. Saying the right to access the source code is more important than the right to modify it only matters if you plan to prioritize one over the other.
In the pre-internet days, I could write my sensitive documents in a closed-source word processor and pretty much the worst thing it could do was silently corrupt or alter my file. Now, a sufficiently malicious word processor could very easily upload a copy to its developer's servers, and make such activity nearly impossible to detect as long as it had a legitimate purpose to phone home.
This is not "open source" software by the open source definition. Free Software advocates claiming that this demonstrates that "open source" software is not free software is like open source advocates claiming that the existence of free (of charge) software -- "free software" in a manner of speaking, though not by the definition set by the FSF -- being available without the source being released under a license which meets the open software definition means that "Free software is not open source".
The FSF definition of free software and the OSI definition of open source software are practically identical in real-world application, as is demonstrated by the fact that essentially all real-world licenses on which both the FSF and OSI have taken a stand as to compliance with each entity's definition of the class of software they are concerned with fare the same under both definition.
You're correct in that you're wrong :) The Open Source Definition [1] states:
>The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
So having access to source/'source available' would not qualify as open-source or free software. Incidentally, when Amazon announced their new game engine 'Lumberyard', which is 'source available', there were places online claiming it was open source. Of course, that wasn't the case because it's not licensed under a free or open-source license and you are restricted from sharing your modified versions.
Call it open source, call it free software, but remember that both require you to give the same fundamental rights to the users.
Edit: now I see a sibling already said the same thing but was inexplicably downvoted despite being factually correct and thus hard to read.
And we have also forgotten that open source was a term coined in 1998 (as mentioned by rms in the interview) by the Open Source Initiative and was intended to be a synonym for free software that de-emphasised the freedom part:
http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/5-things-we-have-forgot...
Other than that, the interview is standard rms. It's somehow reassuring that you due to his unerring constancy over the decades, you can predict the nature of his response before you read them. I like that rms is our faithful beacon in this age of widespread user surveillance and digital control.
I practice, I am not so pure in my actions: I use Google and Facebook (inside a privacy enhanced web browser) and I find an iPad to be useful in my work. Everything else is GNU Linux and libre + open source development tools.
That was the best quote. He's right, but I don't see the big corporations and governments changing. They know everything about us now and they are hooked and only want more.
* Use firefox/icecat * Install uBlock origin * Sign petitions on change.org * Participate in online discussions * Use GNU/Linux (trisquel is good)
etc...
If there's something that brexit taught me is that masses have a lot of power.
Remember, nothing is decided yet, so it's a bit early to crow about the power of the masses to do anything apart from cause the Pound to sink like a stone.
I didn't say that they got a good deal, only that they got what they wanted. To be out of Europe.
That could be spun as "leaving" the EU, but if we still have free movement, free market access, still have to abide by a large number of their rules, and still pay into various EU funds, have we really left?
Well, they got to win their referendum. As ipsi said, they may not in fact get to be out of the EU. There are plausible scenarios where that vote does not lead to Britain actually leaving.
Signing petitions => will this translate to well-targeted get-out-to-vote drives for contentious districts?
Discussion on forums => will this translate to well-targeted get-out-to-vote drives for contentious districts?
Installing browser extensions and using Linux => will this translate to mass-market behavior?
Organization is the truly interesting game, and those in power have had their eye on the ball from the start. I also don't see how Brexit is a beacon of hope for collective action.
Brexit showed that democracies don't really deliberate things, and instead just vote Yea/Nay with 0 attempt for common consensus. Popular disagreement is democracy at its worst, especially when there are 0 effective deliberative processes, because it means a nearly maximally displeasurable voting outcome. In the case of Brexit, that meant that 48% of the nation is displeased. Brexit is absolutely not a lesson of grassroots power, or the kind of things small people can do against large powers.
I'd hold off on that opinion until the UK actually invokes Article 50...
A good example is the ongoing replacement of gcc for clang, while forgetting that for several years gcc was the only really usable free C and C++ compiler.
Open source would have existed without GNU. I would have been different, but it still would have been available and existing in the particular software ecosystem niche that is currently dominated by things with a GNU lineage.
What would have Linus and other have used if GNU wouldn't have been an option during those trials?
Going to buy 386BSD, Coherent and similar?
Do you also remember that most developers only started to care about gcc when Sun decided the SDK was going to be available separately and no longer for free?
All our labs were running a mix of Aix and DG/UX, which got slowly replaced by GNU/Linux around Slackware 2.0 timeframe.
The distribution part describes the BSD Licence, not the GPL. With the GPL, you are not free to "distribute your modified version as you wish." With the GPL, if you distribute a modified version to others, you must provide the modifications. That's not freedom to choose.
Stallman's idea of freedom in terms of the GPL is that, if you don't like the many pages of terms, then you are free to choose to not use the software, which is a freedom you already have.
If you have to have as many pages of stipulations as the GPL has, I can't see it as freedom. The BSD license is, in my opinion, a free license, as you release it, and the consumer of it is truly free to do what they want with it.
There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers.
- prevents power users from getting in touch with the original developers and becoming active contributors (testing, bug reporting...)
- discourages users from learning to code
- prevents power users from getting features / fixes / security updates from the original developer
- removes the opportunity for the original developers (and others) to receive donations from the users or be paid to work on the project
- fragments the community
If more people were educated in the basics of software development, enough to help them in their chosen profession and to understand the technology around them, those people wouldn't be so easy to abuse in the first place. Basically this line of thought is a huge mistake, playing on the tune of the software companies and state agencies that abuse people and break their freedoms.
And in fact, I'm pretty sure that Stallman disagrees with you. After all, this distinction is why he was pissed off and started GNU and the GPL in the first place ;-)
Who cares about source code? Not most users.
If the aim was to make software that's easily user-modifiable - user-modifiable, not developer-modifiable - free software has been a complete failure.
There's certainly a net benefit in distributing software with free access to source code so it can be modified by experienced developers.
But that has never been Stallman's stated aim. If Stallman and the FSF really cared about users - not developers - they'd have spent more time creating software systems that were user-editable.
In fact the industry, including Stallman, has stampeded in the opposite direction.
It's harder for ordinary users to make modifiable software now than it's ever been in the past. We no longer have HyperCard, VB and VBA are dying arts, and the insides of all operating systems - including Linux - are absolutely horrible environments for non-developers to work in. We don't even have BASIC or those make-your-own game systems we had in the 8-bit days.
Those were bare minimum systems. Has it really been impossible to invent something better for more than 30 years?
No one knows. But for all the rhetoric, the question interests Stallman as little as it interests the rest of the industry.
That's not correct. People care about their problems being solved. Hence they care about the source code implicitly.
When my car is broken or needs an oil change, I don't do it myself, I take it into a car repair shop and I like the freedom to go to any car repair shop I want, because those folks from our local Peugeot representative charge an arm and a leg.
That's how freedom works dude ;-)
Politics sometimes stops the hackablity https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8861360
I agree with bad_user that they care implicitly. They care when Oracle is gouging them at $40-70k when it could be free to $5k. They didn't like Microsoft taking away their start button, which was easy to bring back for FOSS GUI. Many didn't want to spend much on a computer for basic tasks, which Linix distros on Netbooks helped with. Many wanted more or specific applications for their smartphones, which Android lets you have. Many want their OS to not spy on them like Windows 10 does, which requires being able to inspect or modify it.
So, they care. They just rarely see it put in terms they understand. Whenever I do, they always support the alternative even if they won't buy it occasionally due usually to backward compatibility with locked-in stuff (eg Office, Oracle, SAP) Stallman warned about or just their personal preference (eg iPhone over Android).
"If the aim was to make software that's easily user-modifiable - user-modifiable, not developer-modifiable - free software has been a complete failure."
Yeah, that's true. It also, as you note later, hasn't been easily developer-modifiable either with how they write it. One of reasons for LLVM's existence was how much of a pain it was to work with GCC. And all kinds of people want to improve FOSS software but few can or do. The dream and reality are quite different.
Mot users probably don't know that it's something to care about.
> There's certainly a net benefit in distributing software with free access to source code so it can be modified by experienced developers.
Even if a user is unable to do modifications himself, there is still a huge indirect benefit because he can use modifications others make or he may hire somebody to do modifications.
> But that has never been Stallman's stated aim. If Stallman and the FSF really cared about users - not developers - they'd have spent more time creating software systems that were user-editable.
The stated aim is to make it possible to freely share and modify software, not to make everyone an expert in the field. Sure educating people and lowering the barrier at some points would perfectly align with the goal of free software but it's still something different.
> Those were bare minimum systems. Has it really been impossible to invent something better for more than 30 years?
Also a lot less capable systems.
The discrepancy would be even higher if you hinder the ability for developers to earn money through the GPL. Money has to come from somewhere, usually that is non-free software or ads.
I wonder how much free or open source software is truly independent of non-free software. I would argue almost none. Many OSS developers work at a company producing non-free software, enabling them to create free software in their free time. The big foundations are supported by the big software companies. Most companies producing free software do so for a market of non-free software developers.
If you decrease the freedom of developers you also decrease the ability for users to do anything, because there would be much less software. Software would be a small elite circle.
The world is a complex place, fundamentalism very rarely accounts for that.
Serious, non-snarky question. If you don't have the ability to modify or interpret the source code due to lack of time or knowledge, what exactly is the benefit?
- No lock-in, no artificial obsolescence. This is huge.
- Better security: Much lesser risk of backdoors, homecalling "telemetries", weakened crypto, adware
- Ability to pay 3rd parties to perform auditing, bugfixes, improve compatibility, even resurrect dead projects if needed
You don't need prior knowledge of plumbing to try and fix your broken kitchen, specially on today's world, with so much free information available. In a similar way, you don't need to be a software developer to hack your way through and learn how a program works and try to change it.
If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware), and I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law. Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day.
The last one is probably the only fair point, but then again, incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.
> If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is meaningless to me.
No. Knowledge like, for example, mathematics is unencumbered by patents and accessible to everybody. All humanity, directly or indirectly, benefits from it. Same for the freedom to read and modify code.
> If I don't check every single compiler and binary I ever run, the second thing is meaningless (open source malware is still malware)
Mandatory food labeling, traceability and hygiene standards clearly improve food safety for everybody. Same here.
>I think Heartbleed is a great counterpoint to Linus' law.
Not at all: given enough eyeballs
Besides, perfect security is impossible and some cases of food poisoning don't disprove the effectiveness of food quality standards.
> Availability of code does not change people's specializations or give them more hours in a day.
Availability of code allowed me and others to learn and review code.
> incompatible data formats happen among open source projects too.
Cherry picking again? Deliberate use of incompatible formats in order to create lock-in is very infrequent in comparison with closed source.
Of course open source projects also suffer from bugs and incompatibilities, that's obvious and uninteresting. The point is that when you run into one of those, you have options available other than calling Larry Ellison and begging him to please fix your problems.
Plus you're contradicting your own argument. First you state that open source doesn't matter unless you can personally read and modify the code. Now you state that you're fine with proprietary software, because you only need one of the company's employees to remove lock-ins and fix security holes for you. Which one is it? Do you require being able to solve problems yourself, or can you rely on others?
One way or another, you're always relying on others. The contrived person who audits all their own source for all their apps down to the compiler level does not exist. Systems are too complicated for that.
At that point, the question becomes "who do you rely on?" - and especially given recent history, I'm not convinced that "everyone who knows how to make a pull request" is a better answer than "only the people that made it". Certainly not convinced enough to begin moralizing about software development schemes...
So I'll ask again: What's the benefit to someone who isn't a developer?
There are few cases where freedom 0 exists without the other 3, but one case where that's true is with some of the Microsoft tooling around the CLR. In such cases, I, as someone who doesn't know low-level Windows programming, can't realistically change the software myself, but I could pay someone else to do it. But since I don't have freedoms 1-3, my only option is to pay MS if I want that modification. There is a very small group of people in the world who can afford to pay Microsoft for customizations. So even as someone who would never make modifications to the software, I care (and my boss who wasn't even a developer would care) because we had to work around limitations of our tools rather than paying someone to fix them.
Do you maintain that the user/developer distinction goes away? I don't think it does.
I would argue that wouldn't be sufficient to remove it in practice, since a good part of that distinction is cultural. People aren't taught to interact with their code because most computers are closed systems, making such interaction impossible, and most software is merely a product to be consumed.
Almost no one (understandably) wants to know how to use a c compiler to build the source code for their applications, much less take the time to review and modify it, no one wants to configure and maintain, even in the open source world it's unusual to actually contribute.
However, it would at least be a distinction without a legal difference.
Stallman's ideal world, and by the sound of it, yours, is one in which everyone is a programmer. Put simply, as nice as it would be, this is totally impractical and unrealistic. Opening up a field to all comers does not meaningfully change what people enjoy and specialize in and spend their time on.
I'm more of an open source than free software person, since I don't buy into the fundamental moral argument of free software, but I have to admit I find the general principle that all software should be editable to be appealing. Knowing how to write software and choosing not to, or at least having the choice one way or the other, to me, is better than not having the choice to begin with.
<post type="devils-advocate">
Off the top of my head, Ubuntu's Amazon integration, Freedesktop's push to Systemd all the things, Firefox's new page ads...
</post>
It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
But if that change is not that big or fundamental you can still apply a patch with relative ease. Thats already huge compared to most proprietary Software.
> It seems to me that all this talk of freedom is mostly philosophical, rather than practical.
I disagree. It may not be always that easy in practice to take advantage of your freedom but that makes it not worthless. Maybe it's too much work for you to maintain a (partial) fork of the Linux kernel but if you find yourself a group of like minded people it may be perfectly possible. Free software also is by far unable to magically fix all of our societies problems but it is one tiny part of making the world better.
Without developers choosing BSD or MIT over GPL, GPL loses some of its influence.
Yes you are. Unless you opt of that freedom by creating non-free software. Supporters of the GPL are are not concerned with the self created problems of creators of non-free software.
Think in terms of generations. Generation 1 (G1) writes the original software, and makes it available under either the GPL or BSD license. G2 receives it, modifies it, and passes it on to G3.
Now, under the GPL, G3 receives G1's and G2's software with all the rights intended by G1's author. That's a restriction on G2, but it's a freedom to G3 (and also a restriction, if G3 is going to modify it for G4). Under the BSD, G3 gets G1's code with all the rights given by the author, and possibly gets G2's code with no rights at all. That's a freedom to G2, but a restriction to G3.
Which is "right", or even just better? I don't know. But I think it's important to notice that in both cases, freedom is being both given and taken away, just from different people.
Put another way, if an end user gets a product which includes free code, they should also have access to the source code.
All of the legalese is merely an attempt to codify this simple concept into the language of law.
Ultimately, as a developer, if you want to use GPL'ed code in your own projects, you need to be prepared to pass on those freedoms you're taking advantage of. Otherwise, write it your own damned self. :)
The GPL does not ensure jack squat. It ensures source code availability as much as the BSDL does.
Consider the following function:
defmodule Jail do def jls() do System.cmd "ls", ["-la"], into: IO.stream(:stdio, :line) end end
Regardless! of which license that code is released under, that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up. Or "closed". And "closed"? How stupid a statement is that about open source. Look, you cannot close open source! You can use it but the same open source code you are using is still out there and available! You can't make it disappear.
What you CAN do is ADD to that code. It's called adding value. And that added value code is yours to do with as you wish. Release it open source or not. I don't give a crap, my function is still free, still open source, and still available for anyone to use no matter what you have done with your copy of it.
So don't give me this crap the GPL ensures code "remains free", it doesn't. That is a load of hogwash. And always has been.
The point of the GPL is to force others to release their value added code. To virally infect non free software to become GPL licensed open source code. And before you say "no one forces you to use GPL'ed code", you are right no one does, but then don't also claim your code is free. It's not.
The bottom line is the GPL accomplishes nothing the BSDL does not already accomplish. Except forcing anyone who uses it to license their value added code under the GPL and play by some socialist zealots rules.
The GPL is a one way technology blackhole. It sucks up other code licensed under more liberal/free terms but can't be used by them in reciprocation.
And your last statement is classic GPL thinking! "Play by MY rules or I am taking my ball and going home!" How freedom loving. We could all learn to embrace such a wonderful concept of freedom as that.
As if what-the-hell-is-an-externality free market "libertarian" zealots were any better.
> that function is now open source, for the entire world to see and use. Period. It is never going away, it's never going to be unavailable. Or locked up.
Sure. It's completely inconceivable that the moderation team might take down your comment, add "value" (read: adverts and malware) to your code, compile it into a binary and then charge $499.99 for a copy. Though even if something like that happened, you should be fine with it, right? If you don't like this outcome, you wouldn't publish it here in the first place. Everyone did exactly what they wanted and everyone should be happy. Total freedom!
Copyleft guarantees freedom for the recipient of the software, whichever hands it passes through. Were it not for copyleft, proprietary software vendors could always take the open source code, do some "adding value" without releasing source code, lock in users into a proprietary platform using network effects or whatever, and in the process make the original software useless and drive it out of business ("Why do you keep using this OpenBSDM crap instead of buying EvilEmpireCorp LiteralKillerApp 9002™©®™® like everyone else? It has shiny rounded corners!"). Copyleft doesn't always remove this advantage completely, but it often helps level the playing field.
Copyleft exists for some very good reasons. To not recognise them, and to spew slurs on it claiming it's not "Real Freedom" doesn't reflect very well on your viewpoint.
Your argument is more or less correct, but it's a feature, even as seen by free software advocates. Not really a fallacy.
Compare it to the argument for gender quotas. A fair criticism, along similar lines, is that if you really do believe in equal rights and fair chances then you shouldn't argue for gender quotas, as they are, in fact directly opposed to equal rights.
In both cases the argument fails because it conflates interim strategies, designed as bootstraping mechanisms, as an application of the principles it's supposed to further.
Only if you disregard the law. Copyright law says that no, that is not freely available to the world. It's owned lock, stock, and barrel by the person who wrote it. If you choose not to attach a license to the code, nobody else may legally use it (barring fair use).
What license you attach to it defines how others may legally use it, and with what restrictions.
The law is why you can obtain the source code to Microsoft Windows from Microsoft themselves, but you can't re-release it in any form.
This seems silly - why does having a point of view grounded in reality (too much software actively works against its users), constitute a religion? Is the UN is also a religion, because they uphold that basic human rights exist and should be enforced?
> That option has served me well for over a decade now.
Yup, that is the other option, though you're bound by their license agreements as well. They just tend to focus more on waiving liability and responsibility.
Users are the people which Free Software is aimed at being around. We often consider our right when we work or publish or develop software, but Free Software is concerned with our users (of course we are also users of other peoples software too, if that makes it easier to understand),
BSD removes "general freedom" by giving you the right to freedom
Mad Max definition of freedom? Freedom from slavery, freedom of association and freedom of speech require quite complex legal framework to be clearly defined and therefore enforceable.
In this construct there are less differences than between GPL and BSD.
RMS is going to be looked back at in history and people are going to wonder why so few listened to him, hes a man ahead of his time.
The other thing I expect to hear is "RMS is just so abrasive, nasty, weird, extreme...." Trite and old responses.
People get just used to the current state of affairs, even if that means not having rights that they do not even know are possible.
According to you, a society with the freedom to kill is more free than one without that freedom.
It's not a useful discussion that will ever go well, so I'm not surprised it's a big subthread on HN.
Precisely. You don't have the freedom to deny others the freedoms you enjoyed. It's by design. The GPL was designed to keep everyone free, not just the first developers to touch something.
Stallman wants, real hard, for this restriction of freedoms to be viewed as somehow "more free", and is fairly hardline about it. I wish he'd stop using freedom as his motivator and just talk about ensuring information access, which is really what his goal is.
And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we are today in terms of progress.
You can say the same thing about slavery, but that doesn't make it good, or worth supporting.
Perhaps in future our society will evolve enough to make all software (and not only software) free. In particular, we should find a way to overcome tragedy of the commons.
> You can say the same thing about slavery, but that
> doesn't make it good, or worth supporting.
But from an economic standpoint? It was a very effective way to accomplish a lot. As disgusting as it was.
> But from an economic standpoint? It was a very
> effective way to accomplish a lot. As disgusting as it was.
In ancient cultures they used slaves to build pyramids. I'm sure the ruling class told themselves that this was a symbol of how advanced they were - that they could build these huge things. I just see a colossal waste of time, with the only purpose being the ruling class having something to feel important about. Stacking rocks on top of each other is no more advantageous to a society than cheap cotton, at least not when the cheap cotton can't be purchased by those who need it the most: the people who produced it.
Did this progress happen because or despite it is/was non-free? Would there be less progress with free software? I don't buy that without a really compelling argument why everything being free software would actually hinder progress to a strongly noticeable degree. Software not practically being free is also a relatively new concept, a lot of progress did happen before nevertheless.
The intent of software freedom is to ensure the 4 freedoms for the users. If you waive those user freedoms because a piece of software is popular, how does that make it "free" from the perspective of the user?
It is very true that we can give more freedom to impose restrictions on users of software, but that's just blatantly missing the point. I can completely understand that it is what you and many other people want, but calling it "true freedom" in the same breath where you espouse to agree with most of RMS's principles is disingenuous.
I don't mean to be as harsh as I'm sure this sounds. Many people learn about free software through open source. They see the benefits of open source processes. They enjoy the benefits that free software brings them through these open source projects. However, I suspect that many (possibly including yourself) don't really understand what software freedom is or why it is important. This is why (I imagine) that RMS refuses to align with the Open Source movement, even though they are fighting the same battles 90% of the time. He hopes to help people understand why software freedom is important and that is his only goal.
To be fair, I think there is a gradient of suckiness to software that is not free. I am playing Dwarf Fortress a lot lately, which is unusual for me because I have barely any non-free software on my machine. However I can identify with the authors of DF who clearly see their code as a work of public art. It sucks that I can't participate fully in that work, but it only sucks a little bit if I'm honest. I am free to write my own interpretation of that art any time I feel like it.
We can contrast that to embedded software that is in medical devices. Although it is an issue that has been going on for some time, it has gotten some press lately. Imagine a pace maker which has remote access and whose software is closed. People's lives are at stake and they can't even review the software, let alone fix security bugs. Clearly this sucks very much beyond what we normally mean by "sucks". (An exploit exists that allows remote people to kill you. Ouch).
Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it. But where do we draw the line?
There is a really sharp gradient with our suckiness level. Even when entities that control non-free software are good actors, they can easily sell the software to people who are not. Politics and policies can change. Would you really like to be a political dissident in Saudi Arabia with a Blackberry phone? Do you really trust so much that things like that can't happen where you live? Even with Pokemon Go? (tracking you everywhere you go...)
I'm not a free software activist (not even in my spare time), though I very much believe in what people like RMS are doing. I've written my fair share of non-free software (and even signed contracts which forbade me from writing free software for many years!) Even these days, while I refuse to write proprietary software, I simply hand over my copyright to my employers and I have no way to stop them from putting whatever license they want on the software. One day I hope it won't be such a big issue because most people will understand software freedom and the advantages it brings to society. We've already come such a long way (with very little help from me, unfortunately).
I hope that helps to shine light on a different way of looking at the issue.
If we make everything free we can stop (re)drawing the lines all day. I agree that not absolutely everything must be free under all circumstances but if you think it trough there are not many reasons to suddenly stop somewhere.
> We've already come such a long way
I would say both yes and no. On one hand we have a lot of free software now, often really good and widely used, great. On the other hand computing devices get more and more locked down these days where you sometimes wish back something like Windows in the late 90s/early 2000s where you practically had more control over what the device did than whats often possible today.
I agree that free software is better for users than non-free. And potentially better for the whole society.
As for "freedom to impose restrictions on users", I see it just the same way I see property rights. You can do whatever you want: share, sell, gift, lease (under any conditions), ignore any use altogether, etc. And users are free to choose. Maybe I'm missing some point. I've seen very few of RMS talks and never met him in person.
That said, I can basically agree with everything else you wrote. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Citation needed.
There are people who think that "free software" is the loony bin and absolutely refuse to be associated to it. There are examples of that in this HN thread. There are also people who call themselves "free software" and disagree with the FSF, although they don't disagree on what "free software" means. OpenBSD is a clear example (look at their release song lyrics).
Asking people to change license of an existing project is quite demanding and takes more effort that doing nothing which makes it an unfair comparison.
I would say the majority of developers who are writing Open Source code go out of their way to ensure they are not touching GPL code.
Open source software allowes everything, even to add proprietary parts to the OSS part and keep the endproducts source from the rest of the world.
Free software prevents this adding of proprietery parts, but allowes the rest of the world access the full source of the end product.
But in the end it boils down to the (philosophical) question of "What is freedom?"
Is it to do anything you want, even if it prevents others from doing anything they want? (You wanna hit everybody and many people don't want to be hit)
Does freedom stop when it prevents others from doing what they want?
If the last thing is true, who decides which actions prevent others from doing what they want? (You buy a new car, while others could use this money to feed their family for years. etc.)
> who decides which actions prevent others from doing what they want.
Ie, my reply would be that whoever decide, the rules should be the same for everyone and effecting everyone equally. If someone can modify, change and distribute a program then everyone should be allowed.
Most OSS software has a certain degree of 'evil' behind it (particularly as they get older and the community becomes increasingly financially-motivated).
I still think that OSS is better than enterprise software most of the time. At least with open source, you open the door (just a little bit) for others to profit from your work (as you do yourself) - There is some sharing an cross-pollination happening.
For example, I spent 5 years working on my own open source project, now I want to use my OSS project to build an application platform; I'm also going to be using Docker, Kubernetes and Rancher to build it; all of these are open source projects and my platform could not exist without them.
So there is definitely a lot of give-and-take happening in OSS. The real tragedy in open source is that some people are takers only; they keep taking but they never give back. I find this somewhat unethical - Especially coming from big, highly profitable companies.
I think the FSF's GPL strategy is actually a decent solution to prevent people from exploiting OSS for personal financial gain, but unfortunately, it also prevents sharing and cross-polination between projects (with the FSF/GPL approach, the only people who benefit from the software are the users; the makers of the software get NOTHING; this is not very motivating in the long term).
Not at all. You can always hire someone to update an abandoned software you rely on or help you migrate to another alternative. Lock in would mean you have no such option.
> Most OSS software has a certain degree of 'evil' behind it (particularly as they get older and the community becomes increasingly financially-motivated).
There is nothing wrong in demanding payment. My time certainly isn't free and I will not write code for free unless it solves a problem I also have.
> I still think that OSS is better than enterprise software most of the time.
This distinction doesn't make sense. Until recently I worked for Canonical on MAAS, a physical hardware provisioning tool for data center operations. It's free (AGPL) and you don't get much more enterprise than managing hundreds of servers.
We have to be very precise with the terms we use. There is enough material here to fuel a flame war that'd outlast most stars.
I cite this as a problem, I don't have a solution, other than getting a lot more investment into FOSS somehow. https://fordfoundcontent.blob.core.windows.net/media/2976/ro...
> The makers of the software get NOTHING
I think one of the biggest problems with many free and open source projects is that they don't have viable business plans. This is fine if what you are hoping to get out of your project is a hobby. But it's not fine when taken in the context that I think you are using it in (wrt to getting nothing).
I think you are right, in a way, about the GPL. It is great because it pretty much stops anybody from competing against you with your own code. Presumably, you have the advantage since you wrote the code and they can't come in, whack some proprietary lock in code and take all your customers (simultaneously stopping them from migrating to your free platform).
But that doesn't mean you can't make money. The one thing I will say is that the normal technique of "write it and they will come" is not going to work because, why the heck would they pay for something they can get for free? So a reasonable free software business plan is almost always going to involve getting paid up front. Once you understand that point, it's a bit easier to imagine working solutions.
Especially true with widely used but rarely noticed "infrastructure" projects which provide a high value to many organizations and there should be a high incentive to ensure their continued development and maintenance but not at lot of money or outside contributions reaches them.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisstokelwalker/the-internet-is-b... https://www.propublica.org/article/the-worlds-email-encrypti...
This is true and this quote from the article is why:
“users have to have control to run the program as they wish and to study the program’s source code and change it,” Stallman said. “This is based on two essential freedoms: to make exact copies and to copy and distribute your modified versions as you wish.”
The vast majority of users don't care about the ability to study and modify the programs they use. They are concerned with one thing, whether or not the damn thing works. For most people a computer and the software on it is simply a tool, not some lifestyle or ideological statement. If the FSF wanted to be effective, they'd focus on providing working, usable software first, and then the message second.
This compromise is the exact reason why the 'open source' movement broke off from the Free Software movement. For proponents of free software, all software is political, and upholds one ideology or another. Refusing to acknowledge this, or downplaying it in favor of making software "usable" fails to address the fundamental problems of non-free software.
Only now is this argument starting to come to other things such as cars and farm equipment as they get ever more software in them. People are finally starting to want this freedom to modify but phrase it as right to repair.
Only public domain is "free as in absolute freedom". Or as rms says:
“This is based on two essential freedoms: to make exact copies and to copy and distribute your modified versions as you wish.” Anything less “subjugates the user”.
The clearest I can come up with right now is "free as in liberty" vs. "free as in a gift to you".
You can and should sell free software (how would you make a living otherwise), software is basically a service, it's not physical commodity, by working on free software you are essentially sell your own services and do it in the best way possible - i.e. completely transparently. There's is this misconception that Stallman is some sort of Che Guevara of software world, he is not, it has nothing to do with opposition to capitalism or communism.
But by the very nature of dictating what qualifies as "free", that too is also a side for people to pick. I think the benevolent dictator thought process applies here.
I just find the my-way-or-the-highway philosophy, even with the best of intentions, eventually draws metaphoric parallels to babies and bath-water.
GitHub is another fine example of a company who preaches open source, but doesn't have an open source product.
> The term "open source" has become a buzzword.
Nope, I'm pretty sure that its meaning remained the same since the term "open source" was founded. Feel free to prove my otherwise.
> Especially recently by the GitLab guys and their rhetoric.
Mind elaborating what rhetoric you're thinking of?
> GitHub is another fine example of a company who preaches open source, but doesn't have an open source product.
GitHub has a shit ton of open source products (https://github.com/github), out of which most popular example is probably Atom. The fact that their core product is not open source doesn't mean that they don't have an open source product at all. Bad phrasing perhaps?