
GNU founder Stallman: ‘Open source is not free software’ - rbanffy
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2016/04/28/gnu-founder-stallman-open-source-is-not-free-software/
======
chriswarbo
Although Stallman's opinions and philosophy may be seen as extreme or
unrealistic, I think he expresses himself very well here, and makes logical,
rational points. It's fine to disagree, but it's not presented in an
antagonistic way.

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.

~~~
erelde
But careful not to push too much your facebook argument:

> 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.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_Would you like to live without fire? More humans lived without it than with
it after all._

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.

~~~
Shorel
Or may be use "writing" instead of both.

It's a new technology that enhances oral storytelling and then later replaces
it.

------
teddyh
The quote in the headline (“ _Open source is not free software_ ”) in this
context means that the open source movement or ideals are not the same as the
idea or aims of the free software movement. On the other hand, actual
_software_ which can be classified as “open source” is, except in pathological
cases, also “free” by the definition laid down by the free software movement.

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.

~~~
leephillips
'“open source” is, except in pathological cases, also “free”'

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.

~~~
piaste
I never quite got why GNU decided to consider the freedom to access the source
code and the freedom to modify it as a single bullet point. To me, they're
fundamentally distinct concepts, and furthermore the former is VASTLY more
important than the latter.

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.

~~~
nsgi
True, but it's less relevant now with web and phone apps that are sandboxed.

~~~
piaste
That's true, but I would argue it's counterbalanced by modern apps being (for
the most part) always online. While we have more control over what data they
can access, there are far worse things they can do with the data we do choose
to share.

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.

------
jordigh
The interview seems a bit odd. The quote in the title isn't present in the
interview text. I hope the interviewers didn't decide to paraphrase him for
that quote. They also quote him as saying "digital rights management", which
is a phrase he absolutely abhors and instead says "digital restrictions
management". I find it surprising that he really said a phrase that he only
mentions when he wants to mock it.

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.

~~~
jessaustin
When you're correct at the start, you don't have to change your mind.

------
mark_l_watson
It makes me happy every time I see a Stallman article on HN. The man has been
right his whole life and his attention to detail on issues that will effect
society in the future are right on. I am happy to pay my $10/month FSF
membership dues.

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.

------
w8rbt
___" Making it easier for people to use technology that controls them and
spies on them is not a step forward for society."_ __

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.

~~~
ffggvv
Why should we wait for them to change? We should take action.

* 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.

~~~
ipsi
Hah! I'll give you that only if we get a "hard" Brexit - if we get a "soft"
Brexit (or no Brexit!) - that is, keeping free movement in exchange for free
market access, and thus having to live by all the rules but getting no voice
in deciding them - then I'd couldn't really call that the masses having "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.

~~~
ffggvv
> that is, keeping free movement in exchange for free market access, and thus
> having to live by all the rules but getting no voice in deciding them

I didn't say that they got a good deal, only that they got what they wanted.
To be out of Europe.

~~~
ipsi
A "soft" Brexit would _not_ result in us leaving the EU, not in any practical
sense. We'd still be a member, all that would change is the type of member to
more of an "associate" member than "full" member.

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?

------
pjmlp
The biggest issue I see when Stallman views get discussed is the ignorance
that without the GNU project, many of the projects people take for granted
would never have existed.

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.

~~~
evgen
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those of us antediluvians who remember loading
sources on nine-track tapes for our Vaxen know of a lot of free software that
pre-dated GNU and upon which a lot of the early GNU software was based. For
quite a while PCC was _the_ C compiler, and knowledge of the BSD userspace was
our shibboleth to distinguish ourselves from the System V heretics.

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.

~~~
pjmlp
Of course it existed, but then do you remember the ongoing trial between
Berkeley and AT&T?

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?

~~~
evgen
USL sued in 91 and it was settled in 93 (was running BSD/386 at home and 4.3
Tahoe at work at the time so I remember the entire affair quite clearly.)
Linux at that time wasn't even an option if you wanted a system that actually
worked but the period of uncertainty was what allowed it to grow into its
current niche. If GNU did not exist there were other options. The fact the GNU
tools were the easier path at the time is why were are where we are at now,
but let's not pretend that there were not alternatives that would have been
equally sufficient if GNU never existed.

~~~
pjmlp
If GNU/Linux never happened, are you sure *BSD would have taken over HP-UX,
Solaris, DG/UX, Tru64, Aix like GNU/Linux did?

~~~
evgen
Nothing is ever certain when discussing conter-factuals, but if Linux had not
had a few years of little competition in the x86 space then yes I think the
BSD variants would have become the dominant strain. They were better studied
and known in the academic space vs the SysV-influenced core of Linux and the
BSD strains have always had better support for the various bits of random
hardware out there. Remember that at this time there was no particular
assurance that Intel would reach the position of dominance that it currently
holds, it was Intel 386 vs Moto 68k vs MIPS with a few Alphas for high-end
shops. Linux as an alternative sysv-like kernel with a bsd userland would have
worked as well as a world of all *BSD.

~~~
pjmlp
I can tell you that the *BSD weren't used at all on my university.

All our labs were running a mix of Aix and DG/UX, which got slowly replaced by
GNU/Linux around Slackware 2.0 timeframe.

~~~
evgen
I guess it was situational then, but </big_generalization> all top
universities in the US had loads of boxes running BSD variants at this time,
ranging from big-iron Vaxen down to NeXT cubes and Sun workstations. I am
trying to think of a major NSFNet participant that was not producing some
open-source BSD-ready software at the time and not many come to mind.

------
lr
Quote: For software to be truly free, “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 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.

~~~
snarfy
Your view is developer centric. For someone that does not develop software,
the restriction on distribution is irrelevant. The GPL is more free for the
users. BSD is more free for the developers.

There are far, far more users in the world than there are developers.

~~~
Karunamon
What use is the GPL to someone who is not a developer?

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?

~~~
ex_amazon_sde
By receiving GPLed software (with sources), compared to closed-down software
that contains non-copyleft code?

\- 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

~~~
Karunamon
If I don't know how to interpret and write code, the first thing is
meaningless to me.

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.

~~~
piaste
You only need _one_ power user to disable the lock-in mechanism or to discover
the security holes. After that, every user benefits even if they themselves
cannot do such things.

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.

~~~
Karunamon
I only need __one__ power user (or employee) to do the same thing with the
proprietary software. It happens all the time.

~~~
piaste
Yeeeeeah, that's kinda like saying you can get your drugs from a police
evidence locker. You only need __one__ burglar or rotten cop! It happens all
the time! Why do we need dealers or legal distribution anyway?

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?

~~~
Karunamon
I think you've misunderstood my argument (and not to mention mischaracterized
with this loaded comparison of software to drugs!)

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...

------
clw8
Although I don't necessarily agree with Stallman on a lot of things (I'm
typing this on Windows 10) I have mad respect for the guy. The world needs
advocates like him to counter the bad actors in the corporate world.

------
ComodoHacker
There's only two points I disagree with RMS on. First, that ALL software must
be free. The true freedom IMO is to allow any form of software and let the
fittest survive.

And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we
are today in terms of progress.

~~~
dublinben
>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.

~~~
runeks

        > You can say the same thing about slavery, but that 
        > doesn't make it good, or worth supporting.
    

How, exactly, do you see slavery as having helped us progress as a society?
Slavery held us back. Both literally and figuratively (we held ourselves
back).

~~~
ivl
It certainly held us back _morally_.

But from an economic standpoint? It was a very effective way to accomplish a
lot. As disgusting as it was.

~~~
runeks

        > But from an economic standpoint? It was a very 
        > effective way to accomplish a lot. As disgusting as it was.
    

As far as I can see, the only economic contribution was free labor. The
presence of free labor makes the wealthy live very well while they are able to
suppress resistance, but saying it somehow made us advance as a society - both
in moral and physical terms - is the opposite of the truth, as far as I can
see.

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.

------
the_mitsuhiko
That is absolutely fine. Many people in the Open Source community go out of
their way to make sure they are not thrown into the free software bucket. I
think the feelings here are mutual.

~~~
ex_amazon_sde
> Many people in the Open Source community go out of their way to make sure
> they are not thrown into the free software bucket.

Citation needed.

~~~
jordigh
I don't know about "many people", but I have some examples. The popular book,
_The Architecture of Open Source Applications_ absolutely refused to change
its title to "The Architecture of Free and Open Source Applications" when I
requested it.

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).

~~~
bad_user
I understand "Open Source", I understand "Free Software", but to be honest, I
always thought the "Free and Open Source Software" (FOSS) term is just stupid.
We have a local saying: it's like trying to reconcile both the goat and the
cabbage.

~~~
jordigh
It's more like trying to reconcile "climate change" and "global warming". Two
terms for the same thing with different political slant.

------
JMCQ87
The interview has some interesting points, this headline is just what he has
been saying for years though.

------
k__
The difference is rather simple on first sight.

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.)

~~~
belorn
Philosophers has been discussing that for a very long time. I prefer the
definition given by Locke, as in "Freedom of people under government is to be
under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to
everyone in the society".

> 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.

------
jondubois
Open source solutions can sometimes have the same level of 'lock in' as
closed-source enterprise solutions.

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).

~~~
rbanffy
> I agree, open source solutions can sometimes have the same level of 'lock
> in' as closed-source enterprise solutions.

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.

~~~
Nomentatus
Security issues are now creating a new kind of obsolescence, and therefore
sane fears of lock-in (unless you want to spend immense sums keeping software
fully up to date.) For example there's advice out there now to strictly avoid
the original Open Office because it isn't being kept up, vulnerabilities
aren't being discovered and patched. Luckily in that case you can probably
jump easily to Libre Office, but that won't always be the case.

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...](https://fordfoundcontent.blob.core.windows.net/media/2976/roads-
and-bridges-the-unseen-labor-behind-our-digital-infrastructure.pdf)

------
ebbv
What else is new? He's been ringing this bell for 20 years. Technically he's
right if by Free you mean his definition of Free and not $0.

~~~
gonvaled
Unfortunately he can ring this bell for the next 100 years and people will not
get it.

~~~
Delmania
> Unfortunately he can ring this bell for the next 100 years and people will
> not get it.

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.

~~~
dublinben
>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.

------
krschultz
The 'free as in beer' vs 'free as in freedom' naming has always been a
problem. Recently I started thinking about the word 'public' in place of
'free', as in 'public good'. Thoughts?

~~~
ucaetano
"GNU-licensed" SW isn't "free as in absolute freedom" software.

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”.

------
marpstar
I only recently came to the realization that premium (i.e. paid) WordPress
plugins are licensed GPL v3. This is a pretty large market for people buying
what's actually OSS even though they don't realize it.

~~~
type0
And that's perfectly fine, even good. Stallman doesn't oppose selling free
software, he's view is that: free (libre) is not the same as gratis (free of
charge).

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.

------
jroseattle
The thing for me I've always found in irony with RMS: he essentially suggests
that if software isn't "free", you've picked a side (OSS, proprietary, etc.)

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.

------
cm-t
But Free Software is open source ;)

~~~
bad_user
Not necessarily: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-
so...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-
source_software_licenses#Approvals)

------
warmfuzzykitten
Perhaps Richard Stallman's greatest achievement has been to redefine the word
"free" and then get a million geeks to argue about whether this or that
conforms to his definition. This is social engineering at its finest.

------
wolfgangh
We owe RMS, or Saint Ignucius, a lot. Most of Free Software was made possible
by or through him. And although I see his point, I wished he would be more
relaxed on some issues. Not all of them, mind you.

------
_RPM
Finally! The term "open source" has become a buzzword. Especially recently by
the GitLab guys and their rhetoric. Thanks Stallman. I stand with you.

GitHub is another fine example of a company who preaches open source, but
doesn't have an open source product.

~~~
r3bl
You're kidding, right?

> 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](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?

~~~
meh2frdf
The issue I have with many open source projects is that they use open source
as a marketing and free labour tool. The contributors to the open components
get essentially nothing, they get to make a slightly wonky product less buggy
and more useful, and then the company benefits on this by selling the closed
component that the open one depends on ( depends on perhaps not technically
but at least from a practical sense).

