
Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than Ever Before - hexis
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before/
======
memset
I (like many of us) have been reading and following RMS for many years now. It
is fascinating how things that I used to feel were impractical about his ideas
("if proprietary software gets the job done, then why shun it? We live in a
world where we must be practical, etc.") now seem imperative.

This point struck home with his mention of education: how frustrating it is
that so much of it lives in, say, Matlab, as compared to any other numerical
package!

How frustrating that we all depend on Microsoft Excel (or Google Docs) to do
pivot tables!

How frustrating that we depend on github to store our code.

How frustrating that we depend on AWS for our servers.

I spend a lot of my professional life migrating from one closed system (eg,
deployments on Rackspace to AWS; cc processing from PayPal to Braintree;
accounting from Quickbooks to Netsuite) to another.

I wonder if, in practice, so many of these frustrations would have been
alleviated if we, as an industry, had adopted the "impractical" view of
insisting on using only free software.

~~~
abalone
A fundamental weakness in the free software argument is that it lacks a solid,
broadly applicable proposal for remunerating the effort of software engineers.

A similar argument could be made for the abolition of copyright -- with the
same weakness. It helps explain why the free software community has not yet
delivered things like Google Docs, Github and AWS.

This does not necessarily invalidate Stallman's argument about the _benefits_
of free software. But without a clear mechanism for _producing_ free software
it's little more than a letter to santa claus.

Here's a thought -- what about government support? My impression is that FSF
tends to focus on volunteerism and heroics. But government support has
produced a lot of the free and open core science in high tech (e.g. DARPA),
and via procurement, even supported bringing it to market.

Why not steer the FSF troops towards advocating direct government funding for
free software projects and services like a public cloud?

~~~
maxharris
_Why not steer the FSF troops towards advocating direct government funding for
free software projects and services like a public cloud?_

"Government funds" come out of people's paychecks. What you're asking for is
that everyone be forced to contribute to projects that you approve of,
regardless of whether those people value those projects or not. I can't see a
valid reason why someone that doesn't know about, need or want "free" software
should be obligated to pay for it. What about their own needs, desires, goals
and concerns? People need to be left free to keep the money they earn so that
they can better their lives and pursue the things that matter to them.

I really like sports cars - I like them a lot. I think they're inspiring to
look at, fun to drive, and I could make the argument that there are a lot of
people, ranging from children to the elderly, that feel the same way about
them. Each of us would love to own, maintain, collect, restore and design new
sport cars. Generally speaking, love of these things is connected with all
sorts of other interests, including science, math and engineering, art
(sculpting, photography, etc.) Just like software, albeit to a lesser extent,
sports cars have have some arguable "public benefit" (i.e., a concrete benefit
for a finite, delimited subset of individuals in society).

Now imagine that we came up with some kind of government program would shower
sports cars on anyone that applied for them. Why should my aunt - who barely
drives - be forced to subsidize my sports car hobby, at the expense of her own
desire to travel on a cruise ship to Alaska while she still can? (She is 79
years old.)

At this point, maybe you'd say, "Well, software benefits everyone far more
than cars do. After all, even people that don't use computers at all benefit
from the improved efficiency (lower prices, increased quality, etc.) that
computers bring to our economy. So all we're doing here is recouping costs
from free riders."

I don't have the space to do much more than to hint at the answer. This is by
no means exhaustive, but one fundamental issue is this:

When you say, "benefit," what do you mean? In my view, a thing is not
ultimately beneficial to a person unless they come to see _for themselves_ how
it is a benefit to their lives, via their own independent judgement. Sure,
identifying what's good for other people is fine. But then insisting that they
agree with you if and when they do not actually agree subverts their
independent judgement, which is the very thing required to produce and select
the things needed to improve their own lives. No one should be compelled to
eat a meal that wipes out their olfactory bulb and tastebuds.

~~~
memset
Our governments already pay for software. In fact, they already pay for custom
software (you can imagine that large packages "off-the-shelf" need a lot of
custom work.) Why couldn't a requirement be that that software be released as
libre?

Could a government insist that, if they did fund a next-generation sports car
(humvee, armored vehicle, sedan, motorcycle, bicycle) that the schematics and
designs of that car be released in a libre fashion? Using libre formats?

~~~
davidw
They could certainly insist on that. The company would likely charge more in
some cases because they'd know they could not recoup anything from selling
whatever to others. With copyrights, sometimes you can say "ok, it's going to
cost X", knowing that you can sell the exact same thing to others at X or
close to it. Without that, you have to make _all_ your money from the first
sale.

Granted, this is not true in all cases, there are exceptions, and so on, but
the logic of it makes sense to me.

------
rmrfrmrf
I would highly encourage anyone who hasn't heard Richard Stallman speak before
to look up a few interviews with him before reading this article. This article
is written exactly how he speaks, so the tone and cadence are much more
dynamic if you have the proper background.

I have to say that Stallman very recently inspired me to start contributing to
open source projects. A few weeks ago, I made my first (one word, lol)
contribution to an open source project on Github. As minor of a fix as my code
was, it felt really great to be part of something like that. It also caused me
to do a lot of introspection: I found myself, up until that point, becoming
flat-out bored with "consuming" content. I now find myself, rather than
frequenting (ok, I still frequent) HN, looking for open questions on
StackOverflow to answer or finding open source projects to contribute to. I
wonder if that's a sign that, eventually, communities like Reddit and HN will
be usurped by social media sites that focus less on consumption and more on
contribution. Based on my recent experiences with contribution, I strongly
encourage everyone else to do the same; it's really a much more rewarding way
to procrastinate!

~~~
chatman
That is good to know RMS inspired you. Just a suggestion, instead of
contributing to "open source" projects, look for "free software" projects.

~~~
eurleif
I understand that "free software" is what RMS prefers, but why is it better to
contribute projects using that terminology? Aren't most open source projects
also free software projects, even if they don't call themselves that? Isn't
contributing to free software a good thing, regardless of what it calls
itself?

~~~
e12e
First, I think it is great that you contribute to open source projects!
However:

> Aren't most open source projects also free software projects, even if they
> don't call themselves that?

No, I don't think that would be correct --- if you agree that there is a
difference between free software and open source (and I think there is).

Free software takes steps to protect the rights and freedom of [edit: _all of_
] its users, both "first generation" (those you directly distribute software
to), and "later generations" (those that might get a copy, or modified copy
via one or more intermediaries).

So, a project can't be rightly called free software (as opposed to "just" open
source) unless it is distributed under a licence that takes steps to protect
its users (which in general would mean (A|L)GPL).

Now, there are probably a few projects that might call themselves "open
source" (or not use the term free software), but still use such a licence --
but I don't think they are in the majority.

In particular, a lot of software that is free on the surface, isn't as free as
it probably should be; namely server side software that is licensed under
(L)GPL rather than AGPL. Or rather, it is licensed with the "user" being a
server operator or business, not an "end user". This facilitates services that
lock in your email, chats, blog posts, social relationships etc, without
(necessarily) giving the end user a "way out".

I'm far from the point where I recommend _everything_ should be AGPL -- but if
we are talking about end user freedom, then there's a lot of software projects
that do very little to protect that -- and in that sense, probably shouldn't
be considered free software.

~~~
elehack
The FSF is happy to consider projects under permissive free licenses (MIT,
BSD, APL, MPL) to be free software. Perhaps not ideally-licensed software, but
they have no problem calling them free software.

~~~
e12e
True. I didn't really mean for my comment to be a normative standard for what
is considered "free software", more to highlight how one might differentiate
"open" and "free".

As for the licences you list, I'd say that MIT, BSD and APL belong together as
"different" from GPL, while the MPL is much closer to the GPL.

~~~
ezequiel-garzon
Could you name any well-known open-source project that is not free in your
view? I hope you won't suggest SQLite, which is in the public domain.

~~~
e12e
That would actually be an example of something that is open, but does little
to ensure end-user freedom.

Please note that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that as such \--
just that -- if we're talking about whether or not software is licensed in a
way that ensures end user freedom or not, then putting software in the public
domain is not an effective way to do that.

One could take the sqlite source, modify it (to break file format
comparability) and build something like fossil[1] -- but where the client
software depends on a server side component ("fossilhub"), and then keep both
the client and server proprietary.

Now, anyone using this service would be locked in to using the proprietary
clients and servers. It'd be difficult to modify the client, and difficult to
migrate your data out -- and if the company that hosted the server shut down,
it would take the data with it.

Obviously, sqlite being in the public domain, doesn't _dictate_ this (see the
actual fossil software for a counter example). But on a spectrum, if something
is released under the (A)GPL, and the licence is followed, end user lock in as
a result of building on that software is less likely. The licence does a
better job of protecting end user freedom.

Would I say that sqlite, in general, isn't free software? Probably not. Would
I call it "more free" if it was under the (L)GPL -- maybe. With libraries, how
you define such things is tricky -- because the intended (end) user is
different.

When you release something like sqlite, you want both the developer user, and
the end user to have freedoms. You might want to enable the developer to
restrict the end users freedoms -- and that is fine -- but calling such a
licence "more free" just because it shifts which type of users' freedoms it
protects, doesn't sit quite right with me.

As an example, one could take pretty much any software under the BSD licence,
or say the whole of a BSD system. Because it facilitates closed systems. It's
been suggested that the PS3 OS runs off a modified version of FreeBSD, for
example.

Now, the console business is largely based on lock-in; subsidize the hardware
for a while, make money from licences. If people could just run anything they
wanted on the subsidized hardware, that wouldn't work very well -- you'd
essentially be giving away hardware. It'd also be illegal dumping in most
regulated free markets.

I'd love for things to be regulated so that selling such crippled hardware
wasn't legal. That would probably mean a hike in console prices, however
(well, at least in the previous generation of consoles \-- it's a little less
clear now that both Sony and Microsoft will be selling PCs).

Another example (well the same example) might be iOS/iphone vs Android
devices. Android running the Linux kernel, lowers the bar considerably for
companies like Canonical and Mozilla to develop new OSs that run on existing
hardware. Yet another example would be various routers and switches running
propietary software, leaving the owner stranded if the upstream source of the
software stops development for some reason.

Free is a spectrum - my original response tried to highlight one difference
between "open" and "free" \-- and in that context, I wouldn't consider sqlite
to be particularily free (nor entirely closed!). I do consider it do be
(entirely) open.

[1] [http://www.fossil-scm.org/](http://www.fossil-scm.org/)

~~~
kodablah
Your (and RMS's) definition of "freedom" and mine are different. I see
software as "free" when it lets me do whatever with it, including modification
and distribution with NO restrictions. GPL software adds restrictions, and
even if those restrictions promote freedom, the restrictions themselves are
the antithesis of free in my view.

~~~
saurik
Freedom is in the eye of the beholder, and often has many zero-sum components:
the freedom you are requesting (to use someone else's work as part of your own
without having to give anything in return) directly impinges on the freedom of
others (as users do not have the freedom to modify the resulting binaries or
devices that you are distributing, a freedom the GPL is designed to assure
users have).

I encourage you to read this conversation I was in recently:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6209724)
(edit: fixed link to include the actually-important comment...)

~~~
e12e
Thanks for that, I wouldn't have seen that (sub)thread otherwise. Basing an
argument on the distribution of binaries seems sound -- even if some people
seem to be able to look past the most well-structured and straightforward
arguments no matter how things are formulated...

------
w1ntermute
I love how rms has been preaching for _decades_ , while most of the tech
community snidely ignored him. And yet, in the end, everything he warned about
turned out to be right.

~~~
kaolinite
Such as? I've heard this said a lot but not heard any examples of non-obvious
statements that he predicted, which have turned out to be true.

~~~
Decade
Sometimes the obvious needs to be said.

Most obvious: In 1997, Stallman wrote an essay in which the protagonist
requires a copyright holder's permission to read a book. In 2009, Amazon
remotely pulled "1984" out of Kindles.

From the beginning, Stallman has said that closed software holds users
hostage. In 2003, Stallman started saying that Windows spies on users. Now,
besides the features Stallman was complaining about, we find out that the NSA
works to make software less secure, Microsoft actively gives vulnerabilities
to the NSA, and Apple is tardy about applying security updates. Both Microsoft
and Adobe are trying to get users to switch to unwanted annual subscriptions
instead of traditional license ownership.

Stallman has also said that cell phones spy on users. That is increasingly
apparent, with cell phone records available for the taking and fake cells to
do individual stings.

~~~
mikevm
> Stallman has also said that cell phones spy on users. That is increasingly
> apparent, with cell phone records available for the taking and fake cells to
> do individual stings.

I used to work for a phone company. They had a very simple to use web app that
lets you input anyone's phone number and _instantly_ locate him on the map.
None of that Hollywood "keep him on the line" bullshit.

------
bluecalm
I am for one ok with propriety software. A lot of people want to make money by
writing closed binaries and a lot of people want to buy them. Arguable a lot
of cool things came out of this model. In ideal world you could write your
software, make it open source so advanced users could hack/verify security of
it and still don't lose any (or many) customers, unfortunately it doesn't work
that way in our world.

What I am not ok with though are monopolies, lock-ins and influencing
education. There is no excuse to teach/use/promote any of the propriety
software in schools. There is no reason to use any of that in government
institutions. If one vendor has so prevalent position that there is no (or
almost none) alternative then it's a monopoly and it's time to deal with it
using antitrust laws (which by the way aren't nearly strong enough these
days). If there is no free alternative developing it is great project for
government to sponsor.

If people not force-feed Excel, Word, Photoshop, Matlab etc. during their
education days still want to use that for convenience later in their career -
let them. Just give them real choice by educating them with open tools.

~~~
joe_the_user
"I am for one ok with propriety software... What I am not ok with though are
monopolies, lock-ins and influencing education."

I think one important point is that closed-source proprietary software
inherently implies lock-in. Some portion of proprietary file formats are
crappy bags of bytes because the company wants a lock-in and some portion are
that way because of simple laziness and you can't easily sort which.

The other thing about people using matlab is that society at large, the
scientific community and such-and-such large groups pay the price of crap
being caught within matlab and whoever writes the original code can just move
on.

~~~
spongle
Actually no. Microsoft at least (this thread mainly targets them) doesn't lock
you into any file formats. Why?

a) I've always been able to export/extract data at will.

b) All their protocols and formats are specified openly here:
[http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/default.as...](http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/default.aspx)

~~~
stelonix
a) You only have been able to do it in the way they want you to: by clicking
the File menu and saving as a different type.

b) Just because there's an "open" specification, it does not mean their
implementation follows it, which is exactly the case for OOXML formats: there
are a number of features which Microsoft Office treats differently from what
the standard _suggests /says_, making interoperability/getting things to show
up in Office _hard as hell_.

This is coming from someone who has to use the OOXML SDK daily.

------
ginko
> Non-free software still makes the users surrender control over their
> computing to someone else, but now there is another way to lose it: Service
> as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, which means letting someone else’s
> server do your own computing activities.

I have lots of respect for RMS and I very much agree with his stance against
SaaS, but I feel creating FSF versions of terms is only harming the message he
is trying to tell. It reminds me of 1984's newspeak in a way.

~~~
repsilat
I was OK with "Digital Restrictions Management" because the original acronym
is just as political, but when RMS says "iBad" and "iGroan" instead of "iPad"
and "iPhone" I have to roll my eyes. I thought we grew out of that sort of
thing after we left "Micro$oft" behind.

~~~
dgesang
Micro$oft got left behind? When did that happen? ;)

~~~
spongle
Their ecosystem has made me £527,000 in the last 5 years. Does that make me
$pongle?

It's just childish.

~~~
dgesang
Taking it too seriously isn't very 'adult' either.

------
dcre
I feel similarly about this to the way I feel about vegetarianism: doesn't
eating 95% less meat have virtually the same effect as eating 100% less? (Not
that I've reduced my meat intake by that much.) I don't really believe that
consequences are the only thing that matters (and RMS seems like someone who
would agree with that). I guess I'm weak-willed.

How many people read his perspective, agree with it (or at least have it
resonate deeply with them), and yet still use plenty of non-free software?
Google Search, Gmail, virtually any iOS or Android app, .NET, Windows, Adobe,
etc. I know I do.

~~~
thristian
RMS and the FSF have always talked about Free software as a moral and ethical
issue, rather than achieving some measurable benefit, so saying "reducing
proprietary-software usage by 95% is almost as good" is a different discussion
than the one RMS is trying to have. Which is not to say that it's a Bad Thing
To Discuss, just different.

Personally, I try to stick to Free software wherever I can, but there are
definitely times where I say "screw it" and use something proprietary. For
example, my government has an income-tax-filing application that's free-to-
download but proprietary. Technically I could get a paper copy of the form,
fill it out by hand and send it in, but in the long run I'd rather have the
temporary safety of automatic form-validation over the essential liberty of
tax-software autonomy. Maybe that's completely unjustified and I'm a terrible
person, maybe it's the right decision for me but the wrong decision for
society at large, I dunno. If I had an infinite lifespan and could take the
time to re-implement all the proprietary software I encounter, I'd like to
think I would, or at least contribute, but given I've got Stuff To Do...

Honestly, I think Step 1 of the Free software movement is just to encourage
people to think about the consequences of their (software licensing) actions.
Some people will agree, some people will disagree, some people will agree in
principle but put "ensure software Freedom" at the bottom of their list, just
underneath "learn Esperanto", and I think that's OK. As usual, the real
problem is exploitation of the uninformed and uneducated, and the more people
there are with informed, educated opinions the better off society will be.

------
b1daly
I know I'm not unique in being bugged by RMS's ideas but I do feel the need to
attempt to articulate why. There has been, in the rarified world of tech
commenters, an increasing number of people claiming Stallman has been proven
correct by recent events. This seem to converge around the rise of iOS
propriety "walled garden" (and similar systems) and the Snowden leaks.

I don't see it. The argument shouldn't be that systems have come to dominate
that are closed.Stallman is making a moral argument, as such there need to be
proportional harms being enabled by such closed systems.

Potential harms are not the same as actual and his arguments seem to focus on
those. In the mean time the world goes about its business and people are
happily using all sorts of software. Along with free (as in beer) software
like that of Google, and relatively secure systems like those of the big tech
companies, many are also use various flavors of "libre" and open source
software.

An accounting of harms, potential or otherwise, needs to have benefits
included, otherwise it remains an exercise in ideology.

This nags at me as well in hysterical discussions of NSA spying, which
sometimes strike me as a sophisticated form of chicken littleism.

If one stubbornly sticks to an absolutist form of ideology for many years,
eventually some of the predicted harms, or at least similar ones, might come
to pass. But this didn't mean the ideology is correct. Without a more complete
and balanced analysis it's hard to say.

I feel similarly about the absolute conviction displayed by some that NSA
spying is an absolute wrong. While it does seem bad In some ways, it is not a
slam dunk in my view. I can see some value in spying if it substitutes for
more violent methods of control, and if it does actually lessen
crime/terrorism.

------
chernevik
I am constantly amazed by and grateful for free software. I write with vi,
code in python, work with data in MySQL and Postgres, grapple with text with
sed and awk and a host of utilities. I teach courses on MySQL, I think the
Windows / closed approach has unnecessarily deadened the average user's
ability to appreciate and explore and use their computers. Open source, as
idea and software, is great.

But.

"When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to
yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. . . . It also
wrongs others if you make a promise not to share."

Yeah, why? Because RMS says so? There is NO possibility of a closed source
usage that is "just"? Is there anything like an argument for this, outside of
some Marxist-derivative account of the inevitability of economic structures?
That closed source might be bad is possible -- that it is so bad that no
reasonable person of good will can possibly hold some other opinion really
isn't.

Freedom is the right to make decisions, and some times bad decisions. Claiming
authority to judge the bad, and thus invalid, decisions, really lays the
foundations for some serious power moves. Maybe RMS thinks corporations and
free contract and market forces are some kind of sham, and maybe he's right,
but it isn't as if there isn't another point of view. Why do I have to sign up
with a core ideology to be supportive of open source? Actually, why do I have
to sign up with an ideology that sounds positively hostile to a lot of what I
think and believe?

The technical arguments for open source are tremendous. The ethical arguments
for it aren't bad. But setting the whole debate in terms agreement with one
man's morality is a non-starter for me.

Now I can use and support open software without signing up for the whole
ideology. And I do. But the two are so associated that I often feel my own
integrity requires using some bandwidth expressing disagreement with large
chunks of the "open source philosophy". That's a poor use of time, and it
diffuses the best arguments. Insisting on open source as some moral imperative
is poor philosphy, and poor rhetoric.

~~~
ajross
This seems like a strawman. You aren't disagreeing with the specific points,
you're saying that because you don't agree with _everything_ in the essay that
you're ... somehow offended by it. And I understand that, because I lived for
years in that same "RMS is a unrealistic pinko commie idealist whose ideas
don't work in the real world" camp. The thing is, he was right. He was right
about pretty much everything.

So sure: you don't like his tone, and I understand that. But I don't think
you're completely clear on his points.

~~~
chernevik
This isn't his tone, it is the foundation of his argument -- closed source is
necessarily and fundamentally immoral, nay, evil. That's an extraordinary
claim, which drives his thinking to absolutism. And its bases have
implications far outside the field of software.

~~~
ajross
Right. So you reject his absolutism via an equally absolutist stance where you
refuse to treat his arguments because you don't like their "implications".
Shrug. I used to think like you. I was wrong. Read his points, not their
"implications". I suspect you'll find more to agree with than you think.

~~~
chernevik
Exactly wrong. Read the bit where I talk about agreeing with him, and finding
ways to cooperate without agreeing with him everywhere?

------
jamesaguilar
Admire him for his dedication, and for his sacrifice, but his message is not
getting through, and it's getting through less each day. Freedom is not an end
to most people, it is a means (source: I'm one of those people). I'm not sure
what tack he needs to take, but the current one is not going to suddenly start
working after so many years of not.

~~~
M2Ys4U
I don't think Stallman needs to change his approach or message.

We do, however, need somebody to _augment_ his arguments with ones that will
reach people like you.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
Rather than worrying about rhetoric, though, why don't we question whether
Stallman is actually right or whether his Utopia is somewhere we really want
to live?

~~~
zxcdw
What is his _utopia_? That all software would be free software?

I for one would _love_ to live in such a world. Why? Because then I could
_trust_ and be _free_ with my computing. Now I can't, and I value my trust and
freedom over conveinience and entertainment, as such I haven't opted-in for
many common usages of computers and computing. It would be nice, but no
thanks.

Would the world be a better place if Firefox and GNU/Linux were proprietary? I
doubt that. How could we trust Tor? How could we(as in the whole internet-
connected world) have any form of secure communications which we could trust?
In fact, I think we would see far more oppression and totalitariatism in such
an alternative, I believe free software helps tremendously with this as it
gives more freedom and makes it harder to take freedoms away and harder to
enforce blind faith on authorities.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
You say you would but I don't think you understand the implications of the his
view and his Utopia. RMS is perfectly fine, he has admitted as such, if the
implication is that we would have not had such a technical revolution that we
have had. You talk about how great Firefox is and I agree but I don't think it
would exist in this Utopia, or even have a reason to exist. I think we'd be to
busy tilling the fields for our feudal lords. =)

~~~
zxcdw
I would rather live free with 80's technology and free software than live in a
totalitarian surveillance state* of 2020's. I simply value free software and
the ideologies behind it as a social movement more than I value capitalistic
self-centered profit reaping at the expense of end-user freedoms. This also
borders the issues with trusting authorities and the whole concept of trust
especially with revelations earlier this year, but lets not get there.

Why are you making an assumption that progress couldn't happen without
proprietary software? Are you also implying that without copyright we would
not have entertainment to enjoy? If so, at all, then our mindsets are the
polar opposite. :)

As I mentioned, I've had to _opt-out_ from computer practices which are the
norm these days because I disagree with the way they operate. This is a big
pain, as I understand their value, however as I value my own freedoms more
than I value the conveinience they bring, I am still acting in my best
interests here. I wish more people would be willing to make such "sacrifices"
to make a point and consider end-user freedom and user and civil freedoms as a
more important social issue than what they are considered now. I would see
such a world a better place than what we have now.

I see free software as promoting transparency and giving rights, and
proprietary software as promoting shady practices without user consent and
imposing limitations and reducing rights. This all boils down to reducing the
amount of trust and having a cultural and social change to fight against abuse
of power and corruption among others. First and foremost it is a social and a
cultural thing.

*: Assuming that we get there with current progress and free software doesn't hinder it.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
How about 1680s technology? As far as totalitarian surveillance state, oh
pshaw. Try the Kamir Rouge. You think Free Software would protect you from a
surveillance state? You're being hyperbolic.

Is it really this hard to see the direct implication of RMS' view? He
certainly understands it and is quite OK with it but I don't think you would
be. 80s tech? Really? That seems pretty posh compared to what would we would
have achieved the RMS morality had been the order the day from the beginning.

~~~
zxcdw
What on earth are you arguing for here? You somehow seem to equate RMS' views
with "no progress". Why is that? Why don't you explain your stance and view
but make me ask for it explicitly?

I really don't see how free software would hinder any sort of progress,
especially if free software adoption became more widespread _now_. Fill me in
here.

------
chestnut-tree
I am fine with closed-source applications. For me, the most important thing is
open file formats, protocols and codecs. Open formats, protocols and codecs
should not be owned by any company.

Most programs manipulate data in some way. Open formats let you switch from
one program to another without losing your data. It opens up opportunities for
paid, free or SaaS solutions and users can choose whatever suits them best.
For most people, their concern is about their data: what happens if they stop
using program x which manipulates their data in a proprietary file format.

PDF is a good example of this - once a proprietary file format, it is now an
open standard. There are dozens, if not hundreds of free and paid-for programs
that let you create, edit, view or save PDF files. (Some of the Free Software
viewers are better than Adobe's bloated Reader software.)

Just imagine what the state of graphics programs might be if Photoshop PSD
files or Illustrator ai files were open formats? Or if everyone used a common
word-processing or spreadsheet format?

------
comex
As much as his core message is debatable, it's usually pretty coherent and
logical. However, I'd like to criticize one specific part of this essay: the
claim that Chrome auto-updates are a "universal backdoor". Although silent
updates tend to viscerally feel a bit creepy, they differ little in practical
consequence from regular click-through ones: it's not like most users verify
the binaries of every package update on their system, so having the user click
through just makes an attacker with a fake update wait a little longer. Note
that Chrome auto-updates can be turned off, and both the updater and the
updated software are (mostly) open source and you are free to compile your own
version, so it's hard for me to see the problem.

(for the record - it _would_ be nice to have a system to prevent one server
from distributing malicious updates to one user, perhaps by verifying with
multiple independently owned servers. However, I do not know of any mainstream
software that does that, including free Linux distributions, so it's unfair to
criticize Chrome for the lack.)

~~~
chatman
> updated software are (mostly) open source and you are free to compile your
> own version

The "mostly" part kills your argument. That means, the updates contain non-
free parts and are hence unsafe. Chrome should be avoided if Chromium or
Firefox works for you.

~~~
comex
Any binary compiled by a third party could be malicious, whether it's supposed
to be compiled from free source code or not, whether it's Google or Mozilla or
Debian. Verifiable compilation would partially solve this and would indeed
make the non-free parts a problem, but this is another thing that nobody is
doing (yet).

edit: Of course this also has nothing to do with the silentness of the
updates. :p

~~~
M2Ys4U
One of the benefits of having the four freedoms is _you_ , the user, can
choose who (if anybody) to trust.

Don't trust Mozilla to build a non-malicious binary from the Firefox source?
Get somebody you do trust to build it. Or build it yourself.

Of course when you get down to it you have to trust that there exists a
compiler that isn't malicious but I think the point still stands

~~~
MaulingMonkey
One also has to trust the source code of the project. Given the sheer number
of unintentional back doors in the form of exploitable bugs occuring in so
many projects, this is a complete non-starter to me, even had I the time to
completely review the source code of any given project. I will miss mistakes,
and I will most definitely miss intentional "mistakes", even if I'm well
versed in the programming language at hand and using it daily within a
professional capacity.

Open source has some significant values to me, but security is not among them.
It may raise the barrier to some very simple, basic, hobbyist style
maliciousness going uncaught, but this is by and large not what I'm concerned
about. I'm concerned by more sophisticated maliciousness. If I cannot trust
your binaries to not contain it, I generally cannot trust your source code to
not contain it either, even if I personally review it.

~~~
Fargren
"All bugs are shallow given enough eyeballs". This can apply to intentional
security exploits as well. Of course, a small free project may not have enough
eyeballs, but at least in a bigger one that does generate some trust.

~~~
MaulingMonkey
An oft repeated phrase, but I need only point to the Debian OpenSSL keygen
debacle -- and how long it went uncaught -- to note just how easily extremely
serious bugs in code known to be extremely security critical can go uncaught
despite the "number of eyeballs".

Bigger projects lead to bigger attack surfaces -- I'd trust the small free
project more than I would the bigger one. Less code to review, fewer
contributors one must simultaneously trust (I'd model project trust as each
contributor being a potential single point of failure) and -- all other things
being equal -- the same number of eyeballs per LOC.

I'd qualify neither Firefox nor Chrome as small projects.

~~~
dllthomas
Oft repeated because it contains some truth. Also, overweighted. Availability
of source code is not a substitute for security audit and good practices in
development. It does help a little, directly. Indirectly, it helps a lot,
because it means now you (or anyone else) can pay anyone to perform that
audit. You can choose who you trust, beyond simple blind trust in the person
providing the software.

------
keithpeter
Nice article to point students at: software has less 'valence' for them than,
say, clothing (c.f. _No Logo_ , Naomi Klien) and so we might get a discussion
going.

I'm surprised that noone has mentioned the recent restarting of the gNewSense
project, version 3.0 is Debian Squeeze with blobs removed. I'm posting this
using the live ISO from a USB stick with a USB wifi adaptor (Thinkpads have
wifi cards that need closed firmware). Everything else works. The release
announcement was posted on HN but only gathered 3 points...

------
GeneralMayhem
I'm still not sure, after all these years of almost identical rants and
writings, that I fully understand RMS's views. I don't see why freedoms 2 and
3 (distribution) have anything to do with freedoms 0 and 1 (control). If you
want to know what's happening to your data, all you need to know is what's
happening on your computer, which means you need to see the source. That's a
cause I agree with 100%. I don't understand why you also need to be able to
give a copy to your friend.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
It goes with a moral value that RMS and FSF have been very persistent about:
strengthening the community and helping your neighbour.

RMS even once gave a talk at one of 2600's HOPE conventions where he said that
given a moral dilemma of having to give a copy of a proprietary program to a
friend and violate the license versus not giving them a copy and sticking to
the license, it would be best to go ahead and violate it.

Of course, he later went on to explain that free software would serve to get
rid of this moral dilemma and that it would be optimal to not use proprietary
software at all.

RMS' speeches always highlight the value of the community and the role free
software plays in strengthening bonds. I believe he's right, as file sharing
in general has become an invaluable part of daily life in the developed world.

~~~
GeneralMayhem
Sure, but again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rhetoric of
freedom. It dilutes the message, and it's needlessly antagonistic. It
alienates people like me who don't think the model of getting paid for what
you build is a bad thing.

And of course, his scorched-earth, perfect-or-nothing style of morality
doesn't help - open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows,
but he never acknowledges it. When you have little enough public support to
begin with, focusing on the things that separate you from potential allies
isn't a good way to do business.

Of course, I'm not anywhere near as successful or accomplished as RMS, and
probably never will be, so maybe I shouldn't tell him how to do his job. Maybe
he just doesn't give a shit if anything actually changes, so long as he stays
pure, and if that's what he needs to sleep at night, then fine. But that
doesn't make it look any less counterproductive from where I'm sitting.

~~~
emiliobumachar
"open source should, even to RMS, be a lot better than Windows, but he never
acknowledges it"

He does.

[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point.e...](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
point.en.html)

"Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions."

------
itchitawa
Sadly, the word "free" always has strings attached. For GNU, the GPL license
disallows "The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
versions, when you wish." You're not allowed to attach non-free code or remove
the over-complex license agreement, which can make the whole software useless
for many purposes. It's not right to call GPL software free, it should rather
be "no cost and slightly restricted use".

~~~
thejteam
There is certainly a need for a radically simplified version of the GPL. The
average person does not understand all of the ramifications of the license.
Here's a scenario that hinders the distribution of open source software:

Teacher: Here, children. Here is some free software. Parent of child: Thanks.
It is GPL. Give me the source. Teacher: Huh?

There needs to be a license that is similar to the GPL in scope but is
readable and clear about what is required to a person who has never compiled
software in their life and is not a lawyer. Open source projects need to
realize that not everybody is a software engineer. Not everybody is up to date
on the latest terminology. If they want laypeople to download and distribute
code, make it easy to get. And above all, communicate clearly in language they
can understand.

~~~
tedunangst
That's a fun game to play. Go to a local Linux users group meeting. Borrow
somebody's Debian DVD (someone always has one) and install on your laptop.
Wait a year. Look that person up and demand they mail you the source for the
exact binaries you installed a year ago.

~~~
Nursie
They have no obligation to do that. They can just send you links to the
source.

You would certainly be making their lives difficult for no reason, in terms of
tracking down software revisions. I guess if that's fun to you then ...
whatever.

~~~
tedunangst
There have been kerfluffles in the past where people (companies) did exactly
that. Gave someone a binary, then told them to download the source from
somebody else. People got angry.

~~~
e12e
Yes. But Debian wouldn't be angry if you pointed to them.

In the past, it's been business entities that have distributed considerable a
number of binaries (I believe one case was with code running on a router?) --
and charged quite a bit for that (bundle) -- and yet been too cheap to host a
copy of the code online.

------
hacknat
>>If the users don’t control the program, the program controls the users.

I hate that he says this. And, he says versions of this a lot. Of course there
are times when he is right, but I think a lot of times he’s not.

Most of us make trade-offs. I use Gmail, I know that it might not be the best
product anymore, I am certainly aware that my private correspondence is being
crawled by Google. Here’s the important thing, I don’t care. It’s not that I
trust Google, I just don’t think that trust is something that I value from my
email provider (others might, and they should seek their email service
elsewhere).

Why would you ever trust a company? Any why is it owed to you that you should
get to live in a world where you can?

------
auggierose
I respect RMS and his point of view. But I don't believe in any religion, not
even the RMS variety.

------
EGreg
RMS pretty much saying the same thing he always says, but this time in Wired.

------
wslh
I am waiting for the GNU mea culpa.

While I strongly support free software movements, they are not up to the
height of the current circumstances. How can I replace my mobile phone OS (and
hardware) with a free and completely open source? I am waiting for that. It
seems the new mobile trend (iOS/Android) caught them off guard.

~~~
joe_the_user
I don't understand what you think GNU has to apologize for.

GNU is limited by the amount of resources that people into them. In these days
of NSA spying and such, the usefulness to society of GNU's having enough
resource is becoming clear. But the people most to blame for GNU not having
those are ... everyone who _haven 't_ contributed (which I'll admit includes
me). Those to blame for GNU not having resources probably wouldn't include GNU
itself.

~~~
wslh
Every organization is limited by resources.

I can restate my original (downvoted) comment as: I have a high esteem and
respect for GNU but I think they can do more to fight in new causes. It's an
intuition.

