
The Free Software Foundation is even more relevant now than before - Tsiolkovsky
http://www.markwatson.com/blog/2013-08/fsf-more-relevant-than-ever.html
======
clarry
Free software is nice, privacy and security are needed, yada yada. Yes, I
absolutely agree. What does the FSF have to do with this? This an interesting
claim in the title, but the post does nothing to explain the relevancy of FSF.

I used to be an avid supporter of the FSF, but in the recent years I've been
shying away from them because I don't see how they're relevant to the well-
being of free software. In fact I've come to see them as a lobbying group
pushing their one-sided view of what free software is and how it should be. I
much prefer to support free software projects and the people who actually
write and maintain free software. I do this in the form of testing, code
contributions, code review, bug reports, and user support. I'd also donate if
I weren't living on a student's budget.

I used to be subscribed to some FSF mailing list. They kept asking for
donations, but never did they give the impression that they're spending it on
improving or making any free software I value. Sorry, I don't want to support
their lobbying with my money.

~~~
profquail
I agree. I respect Stallman and the FSF, and I think certain parts of their
message are important, but I prefer to keep my politics and my software
separate. IMO, this is one of the reasons people really like FreeBSD --
there's no political agenda behind it, just people who want to build and use
great software.

As for this article, I'm curious to know why (or if) anyone would donate money
to the FSF to be used for lobbying rather than giving it to an established
lobbying organization like the EFF or ACLU.

~~~
destan
politics and software are tightly coupled independent of whether you pretend
it's not...

regarding your second paragraph, fsf needs money to carry campaigns to tell
the people about the inconvenient truth.

~~~
epistasis
I don't disagree that politics and software have close ties. But I fervently
disagree with the particular politics of the FSF, even though we share common
goals.

However, the FSF is absolutist and views their particular politics as
inseparable from the goals, almost as if the politics are the goal itself.
This is at best childish, because mixed in with their message that contains
"inconvenient truth" they also include a lot of unnecessary BS. The logic that
accompanies their political reasoning is patchy and convoluted at best, but
these holes are pasted over with overwhelming passion and feeling.

I could support a more rational organization or lobby group, even if I didn't
agree 100% with their politics, if we shared common goals. The FSF makes that
impossible. They will therefore see no support from me, despite my continued
support for our common goals.

~~~
spacelizard
> the FSF is absolutist and views their particular politics as inseparable
> from the goals

I often see this kind of hyperbole and it seems very meaningless to me. Their
particular strategy has remained pretty consistent and has managed to fund
development of a good number of successful projects. If it's their PR you have
a problem with, what is it that you want them to say? That it's okay to
support the use of proprietary software sometimes, even though that's
completely against the whole point?

------
microcolonel
I think the issue is that the stallmanites cling too much to the state. They
think the state is there to apply rule of law(something which in practice
rarely happens even for serious crimes like murder) and that it can
effectively apply law to itself; this has been proven wrong time and time
again, and is one of the failings of contemporary societies.

I am enchanted by the freedoms of free software, just as I am by freedoms in
broader life; Freedom is part of the product when I pay for software, and the
understanding is that I will come back to the author if I want the work of the
people who best understand it, rather than the people who refuse to let me.

I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard(for whom I have no
personal gripe), because Richard has a government addiction(even when it comes
to problems widely caused by government to begin with, such as software patent
litigation).

If we can learn to separate our understanding of justice from our misguided
best wishes for the state, I think free software, and freedom in general can
prosper.

~~~
chatman
> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard

Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement
doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of
bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).

~~~
Sanddancer
If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various
BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the
restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue
that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and
increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and
made their goals all that more difficult to reach.

~~~
belorn
Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL
licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you
are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with
GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about.
This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather
than more fragmented.

As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly:

1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the
permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical,
rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user.

2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term
"patent agreement" to it.

If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices,
and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people
use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same
legal instructions as GPLv2.

Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical
restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for
patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve,
and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need
to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as
evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.

------
josteink
Free software is definitely high on my list of priorities right now.

However, what seems equally important is data-ownership. If you can't obtain
ownership of your own data, what does it matter which software you run?

In that regard, this commment on reddit has some good leads to get started
taking your data back from Google:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twitter_users_switching_to_android_as/ccdpdj0)

~~~
melange
Free software stands in opposition to free data. When software is free data
becomes the center of value and therefore is hoarded.

~~~
eevilspock
I think you're confusing free software (e.g. Linux) with ad-supported software
and services (e.g. Google).

That Google or any other ad-supported product is free is utter bullshit. There
is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the
price of the advertised products. But with advertising, it's actually much
more expensive:

    
    
      Cost of thing itself +
      Cost of advertising overhead + 
      Opportunity cost of inferior product +
      Cost of our identities and privacy (as bought and sold to the highest bidders) +
      Social cost of advertising
    

To me the last item is the most expensive of all.

~~~
melange
I'm not confusing anything, although I agree with you about Google. The point
is that if source code is always available the value of software goes to zero,
and the only value is in information. This leads to the existence of companies
like Google, who rely on the data they hoard to make money. It also accounts
for the "do consulting" explanation for how to make money out of free
software.

------
zeruch
Having relevance conceptually and having a vehicle internally that knows how
to communicate beyond its sycophantic core audience are two radically
different things. The FSF has never been good at messaging; even its best
speaker, Eben Moglen, has effectively cut his own path.

The FSFs ardent dogmatism serves a kind of barometric reading of a key
segment, but it has little to offer as a "big tent" player in the broader
discourse.

------
cLeEOGPw
I always thought that "free" in the FSF and other names stood as "for free",
no payment needed, did not realize it actually stood for freedom. I think it
might be that other people also mistake free software with some spam
foundation, since the more common association of "free software" comes from
spam malware filled websites offering "registry cleaners".

~~~
yesbabyyes
This unfortunate dual meaning of "free" in English is the reason for Richard
Stallman saying:

> To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech,"
> not as in "free beer".

[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-
sw.html](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

------
laureny
The FSF has never been very relevant so saying it's more relevant than before
is not setting the bar very high. Besides, that's probably what you'd expect
to hear from someone bragging they've been supporting it for 30 years.

I appreciate the value that free software brings but what differentiates me
from the people at the FSF is that I also realize that free software is not a
panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement
to the existence of a healthy ecosystem.

~~~
Kim_Bruning
As I gain experience over time, it begins to appears to me that free software
is the only long-term viable option.

I think this is perfectly reasonable, after getting burned for the umpteenth
time by proprietary software vendors. (Or vicariously discovering that _yes_
other people have indeed been burned yet again)

~~~
Sanddancer
On the flip side, I've been burnt by Open software vendors who have decided
that their commercial needs mean discontinuing support and funding for their
own projects. The Insight frontend for gdb, for example, was fantastic, but
has languished since RedHat bought out Cygnus. I can also point to the support
policies of many Open operating systems -- I can still get support, patches,
and bugfixes for Windows Vista, which was released in 2007, but can no longer
get support, patches, and bugfixes for any Linux distribution released in a
similar timeframe. While I can see more and more of the market moving towards
Open solutions, I can only see FSF-created solutions dragging us down.

~~~
teddyh
It is pretty disingenuous of you to claim that you can't get support, patches
or bug fixes for any Linux distro from 2007. You can easily get those things.
Just not _for free_. Just pay from the money you saved by not buying Windows
Vista, and attribute some of this to the cost of not upgrading your operating
system for _six years_.

------
chatman
The author's own "wishlist" and bullet points are very reasonable for almost
any of us to do. In such an environment, one has the freedom without
sacrificing too much convenience. Esp. the cloud backup using encrypted
archives on periodic basis.

------
brador
We need a truly open source mobile operating system.

~~~
chatman
Look at Replicant OS, the GNU foundation's effort to put a free Android
system.

~~~
melange
How is it better than regular android?

~~~
quadrangle
It removes proprietary parts of the system.

~~~
melange
So it's worse, but it confirms to FSF's philosophy.

------
agumonkey
Has there ever been a Free Hardware Foundation or an effort in this direction
?

~~~
pjc50
There are some efforts (e.g. opencores), but as discussed here:
[http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-
is-...](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-open-
hardware-so-rare/) , and the famous Arduino is "open".

The "freedom to redistribute copies" and "freedom to modify" aspects of Free
software really don't translate well to hardware. There is work and cost
associated with copying a board, and much more associated with copying an ASIC
(modified or otherwise). It's simply not going to be within the reach of the
average user in the forseeable future.

Another factor is rapid obsolescence. Some of the open UNIX software is thirty
years old; GCC is about 25 years old. Open hardware will generally have a
shorter time before it starts looking horribly obsolete. This is especially
true of all the things that people really want to be open: processors,
graphics hardware, wireless interfaces.

(You could have an open replacement for e.g. the 555 or LM741, which would be
more timeless, but what would be the point? How would it differ materially
from the current ones?)

There is certainly scope for "community" hardware development, but that
depends on having a stable, sensible community that can agree what it wants
and is willing to pay for. Again, requires a lot of work.

~~~
agumonkey
I guess we'll have to wait for not too expensive, electricity efficient and
fast FPGAs.

~~~
pjc50
By the nature of their technology, any FPGA will always be more expensive and
energy hungry than the inflexible ASIC counterpart. No silver bullet.

What's more likely is interesting SoCs with partially reconfigurable analog
blocks and accessible graphics co-processors.

~~~
agumonkey
I understand that the flexibility of FPGA has a great cost, but with them we
might have a better chance to ensure what the processor is actually doing.

I like your idea.

------
znowi
The top comments here are well correlated to the current state of privacy in
the US :)

