
Applying the Free Software Criteria - chei0aiV
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/applying-free-sw-criteria.html
======
dikaiosune
I don't get why it's ok in this context (if you agree with the inherent
unethicality of nonfree software) to have compatibility and support for
interoperability with nonfree software. It might not purposefully lead someone
to a less free situation, but when you're speaking as absolutely as Stallman
does, I don't see how you can condone actions that may prolong someone's lack
of freedom. I'm genuinely confused by this - if there's anyone who could lay
this out without dogma and hyperbole I'd be much obliged.

~~~
tedks
Stallman in fact is quite a centrist and a pragmatist. The problem is that the
software freedom landscape is so incredibly shifted towards the non-free end
of the spectrum that he appears to be a radical. We can easily conceive of a
radical splinter group of the FSF, the SLF (software liberation front),
advocating:

1\. Only the use of the AGPL license. No other license is considered free,
because all other licenses can be used in some way to limit the freedom of
users. As soon as a license more free than the AGPL comes along, only that
will be the free license. (In contrast, the FSF promotes the Apache license,
the LGPL, and similar, when it is strategic to the free software agenda.)

2\. Never interoperate with non-free software. To do so is to condone actions
that may prolong someone's lack of freedom. The fact this may be necessary for
their work or personal life is irrelevant. (In contrast, most GNU software
runs on Windows, which Stallman probably sees as no different from it running
on the proprietary Unices he wrote it on.)

3\. Do not allow the execution of non-free code, if your free program executes
code. (In contrast, gNewSense or IceCat will execute any x86 or javascript you
throw at them, even if it doesn't have licensing metadata that identifies it
as free.)

The FSF and Stallman are in fact quite tolerant in an absolute sense compared
to our hypothetical SLF. This doesn't even go into the other strategies or
tactics such an extreme group could engage in, such as firebombing the
Microsoft offices or forcibly liberating source code. Instead, the FSF
restricts itself to very tame boycott politics.

You in particular have a gross misunderstanding of Stallman's strategies and
tactics, even if you might understand his goals. Stallman is a moderate. He
thinks pragmatically, even if he's sometimes wrong (protesting DRM at apple
stores is probably a waste, as is protesting furriers, but sometimes you can't
help but want to speak out).

~~~
mankash666
So your argument is: Stallman is a moderate when compared to a hypothetical
software terrorist?

In the real world, Stallman is still a radical. The English meaning of the
word freedom cannot be twisted for suiting one's philosophy. True freedom lies
in allowing your work to be modified without restrictions - like the BSD or
Apache licenses offer. Daemonizing software released under those licenses, and
proselytizing against their use IS radical.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The FSF does not demonize nor proselytize against the BSD licenses. They are
free software licenses and thus FSF-approved.

~~~
mankash666
FSF's most vocal proponent has gone on record with his opinion on the
BSD/Apache licensed software.

[http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-
obj...](http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-objects-to-
support-for-llvms-debugger-in-gnu-emacss-gudel)

------
benwerd
I don't think this is a realistic request on the modern web - particularly
when it comes to JavaScript code, even if it's a technically accurate
interpretation of how JS is transmitted and executed. (Licensing is an
interesting thing to think about here.)

But hey, for what it's worth, every piece of JavaScript we run is free
software compatible. Hooray!
[https://github.com/idno/known](https://github.com/idno/known)

------
mankash666
I'm a huge user, believer and propagater of QUALITY free software, or quality
anything.

It's preposterous to suggest that non-free programs limit individual freedom
and liberty. Quid-pro-quo: the undeniable biological, evolutionary instinct to
receive something (money) for a rendered service/product (software) simply
cannot be deemed criminal. There's very little incentive to charge money for
something whose blueprint is free. RedHat is the exception in the software
world, not the rule. Very few profitable free-software based companies thrive
- take canonical for instance, they're barely profitable despite putting out a
VERY high quality Linux distro

Plus, why stop at software - why not release the blueprints of EVERYTHING ever
made? Oh - and please tell your ambitious school going kid to NOT aim to
finish first, because, when he grows up to be a successful inventor, Stallman
and co. would have brainwashed the masses into daemonizing inventions that
aren't made public property!

~~~
gillianseed
>Quid-pro-quo: the undeniable biological, evolutionary instinct to receive
something (money) for a rendered service/product (software) simply cannot be
deemed criminal.

FSF/Stallman in way claims that charging for software is criminal or even
unethical.

The whole point of Free Software is to give and preserve rights for end users,
rights which enable end users to do what they want with the software they
recieve, like examining it to make sure it doesn't do anything bad (for the
user), modifying it to do what the end user wants, copy it, etc.

Now obviously this makes it incompatible with the traditional way of
commercial software, which is proprietary distribution of binaries, which
often also comes with DRM schemes further limiting what the end user can do
with said software, and worst case, exploiting the end user by enganging in
hidden or poorly-disclosed unwanted actions (spyware, rootkits etc).

~~~
mankash666
I don't understand this - every product & service sold in the open market -
from baby formula to clothing, from a meal at a restaurant to a flight -
relies on competitive advantage that's proprietary to the seller.

A mindset to open this advantage up is somehow being selectively applied to
software.

In a truly open and free market, malicious elements that include spyware,
rootkits .. etc will get rooted out. Additionally, regulation from the justice
department and FTC tries to maintain the free-ness of the market, so that one
company doesn't abuse its position.

In this light, the GPL is simply not compatible with the tenets of economics -
which by the way is how evolution and biology has programmed all of us.

BSD/Apache/MIT kind of permissive licenses offer true freedom. They allow for
jointly harnessing the resources of many to build infrastructure that has
widespread use - an approach that allows companies to focus on their value-add
rather than re-inventing the wheel.

Stallman is a vocal detractor [1] of ANY permissive open-source license. This
is unfortunate for someone who actually played a pivotal role in the big
success that open-source is today.

[1]: [http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-
obj...](http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/02/08/210241/rms-objects-to-
support-for-llvms-debugger-in-gnu-emacss-gudel)

~~~
gillianseed
>I don't understand this - every product & service sold in the open market -
from baby formula to clothing, from a meal at a restaurant to a flight -
relies on competitive advantage that's proprietary to the seller.

I disagree, what products and services typically rely on is price which in
turn is typically based on just how well a company can exploit workers and
negotiate cheap prices for material, and of course advertising to make people
buy their particular version out in a sea of thousands of practically
identical products.

>A mindset to open this advantage up is somehow being selectively applied to
software.

Because the FSF is concerned about software, due to it's founder being a
developer. I'm sure there are efforts to have better dislosure of contents,
preparation and materials used for the type of physical products you brought
up.

>In a truly open and free market, malicious elements that include spyware,
rootkits .. etc will get rooted out.

I find that incredibly naive, pretty much every company wants to exploit their
customers for maximum return, Microsoft recently turned their OS into the
equivalent of spyware in order to harvest user data for ad targeting,
meanwhile the governments are actively making use of malicious elements to
compromise as many end users they can in order to surveil them.

>which by the way is how evolution and biology has programmed all of us.

What? Are you saying we are actually programmed to hide our discoveries in
order to be able to take advantage of our fellow man rather than share our
knowledge in order to advance ourselves as a species ?

>BSD/Apache/MIT kind of permissive licenses offer true freedom.

For the developer, Free Software offers 'true freedom' for the end user. Ah,
the old 'true freedom' nonsense.

>an approach that allows companies to focus on their value-add rather than re-
inventing the wheel.

Meanwhile everyone needs to re-invent the value-add functionality, so you are
still re-inventing the wheel.

It ends up saving proprietary companies money because they can lower the
amount of developers they need, since they don't need to write as much code,
only the 'value-add', this leads to less developer employment.

If anything you should be disliking permissive code rather than copyleft,
since it is the former which really threathens developer jobs in the
proprietary software sector which you seemingly fear for.

>Stallman is a vocal detractor [1] of ANY permissive open-source license.

Well obviously since they do not protect any of the end user rights which Free
Software was created to protect. Again Free Software is about giving rights to
the end user, not the developer.

