19 replies to this topic

[Warrior]

I think 'Richard Matthew Stallman' is a fanatic and a paranoid but I appreciate the work done by Free Software foundation.To me he represents Karl Marx in the digital world,Marx has 'Das Kapital' and he has his fanatic ideals of Free Softwares and anti-proprietary goals.

Freedom is all about choice,a person should be free to choose free software or proprietary software or use them both.I prefer the term 'open source' instead of 'Free Software'.

[WingedPanther]

Stallman likes to say he supports software freedom, but promotes a license that is more restrictive than, say, the MIT license.

[ZekeDragon]

I suppose that it was inevitable that I'd have to say something. I'll try and keep it short...

Warrior said:

I think 'Richard Matthew Stallman' is a fanatic and a paranoid but I appreciate the work done by Free Software foundation.To me he represents Karl Marx in the digital world,Marx has 'Das Kapital' and he has his fanatic ideals of Free Softwares and anti-proprietary goals.

Well, turns out that paranoid fanatic was right about companies keeping track of you with your cell phone, and it's actually worse since anyone who happens upon your phone (or confiscates/steals it) can access that info. Since the code of the iOS 4 is ferociously closed, there's no way any of us can determine if the iPhone isn't reporting home with this information, either from the phone itself or from iTunes during syncing.

Your conflation of RMS with Karl Marx is pretty much standard. Many people try to associate Free Software advocacy with Socialism/Communism in order to discredit the position with guilt by association, so I have little to say about it. However, I think your emphasis on him and his ideas being 'fanatical' is over reactive. If he's a fanatic, then he's a fanatic fighting for the right reason, and I'm personally glad he's there doing it.

Warrior said:

Freedom is all about choice,a person should be free to choose free software or proprietary software or use them both.

Freedom is about liberty, which is the ability to act uncoerced according to your own free will. Both Liberty and Freedom have many, many different definitions and perspectives, but I would certainly not limit Freedom to merely choice. I could give you the choice of being shot in the head first or being buried alive, but regardless you're not free to make the decision you want. Being required to choose between proprietary shackles or a Free Software program forcibly limited in capabilities due to software patents is not a free choice.

Warrior said:

I prefer the term 'open source' instead of 'Free Software'.

Very well, though I prefer Free Software, since I'm talking about freedom as an ethical position. I'm not as offended as RMS is to the term 'Open Source', however I do refrain from using that term with anything I publish, as I want software to be free.

WingedPanther said:

Stallman likes to say he supports software freedom, but promotes a license that is more restrictive than, say, the MIT license.

I've already said what I have to say about this.

[gregwarner]

ZekeDragon said:

Freedom is about liberty, which is the ability to act uncoerced according to your own free will.

The Free Software Foundation's attitude toward this is an oxymoron. If I want to take GPL code and modify it and release it as closed source, I should be free to do so. Not according to the GPL. I am coerced, which goes against what you are saying.

[ZekeDragon]

I had an answer, but my butter fingers pressed the F5 key. Now it's gone in refresh heaven. I'll just say this:

gregwarner said:

The Free Software Foundation's attitude toward this is an oxymoron. If I want to take GPL code and modify it and release it as closed source, I should be free to do so.

Why? How is it sensible to grant someone the right to take away someone else's rights? Why should one get to take what was the communities and, though a few modifications and enhancements, create a vendor-controlled and locked-in monopoly?

gregwarner said:

Not according to the GPL. I am coerced, which goes against what you are saying.

I looked up the definition of coercion before answering this, and I found a few (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's is particularly interesting). The point I'll make is that closed source, proprietary programs utilize predatory coercion in myriad ways (such as packaging software with hardware and hiding the license details in an enormous sea of legal text so no sane person would want to read it), and GPL programs only 'coerce' in such a way to prevent people from taking your freedom through their own coercion.

Edited by ZekeDragon, 10 June 2011 - 03:39 AM.

[gregwarner]

ZekeDragon said:

How is it sensible to grant someone the right to take away someone else's rights?

What if I don't want you to have the right to my code? I should be free to decide that.

ZekeDragon said:

Why should one get to take what was the communities and, though a few modifications and enhancements, create a vendor-controlled and locked-in monopoly?

You're definition of monopoly is wrong. If they took GPL'd code and released it closed, others could still get the original GPL code. No monopoly. No problem.

[ZekeDragon]

gregwarner said:

What if I don't want you to have the right to my code? I should be free to decide that.

You're correct. You're free not to distribute the program, but the program and it's code are inherently intertwined, so releasing one releases the other.

gregwarner said:

You're definition of monopoly is wrong. If they took GPL'd code and released it closed, others could still get the original GPL code. No monopoly. No problem.

A monopoly is any entity that has complete or near complete domain over a specific market product or service. If you take a free software program (one that inherently does not have any specific controlling party) and modify it, then release it under a closed license, all of your modifications are under your exclusive control and domain, thus it is a monopoly. You may say that due to substituting products (the original free software program) that it's still facing 'competition', but that's highly dependent on the domain of the original program and in what ways the programmer modified it. Your argument may hold true for things like web browsers, but not for a language interpreter or compiler, where all you do is modify the parser into your own language and then you've got exclusive control over that new languages interpretation. This problem also applies to kernels, runtime environments, drivers, and other underlying technologies as well.



I'm done with this though. I'd rather advocate free software by writing and selling it than arguing various points on CodeCall. I'd like to hear any closing remarks you have but I won't continue this chain since I believe others would also like to chime in. Thanks for the lively conversation. :)

[gregwarner]

ZekeDragon said:

but the program and it's code are inherently intertwined, so releasing one releases the other.

I'll just release the object code. :)

ZekeDragon said:

If you take a free software program (one that inherently does not have any specific controlling party) and modify it, then release it under a closed license, all of your modifications are under your exclusive control and domain, thus it is a monopoly.

No, it's not. You're still confusing the definition of "monopoly".

Software is inherently different from other resources and commodities that can be monopolized because software is created in a very different way. Yes, I can have a monopoly over a physical resource, and I can even have a monopoly over the browser market by including a free browser with every copy of my operating system. But this isn't what we're talking about here.

All I want to do is write a program and sell it to cover my cost of development. I'm not forcing anybody to use my program. It's not a monopoly because you are free to get the original libraries I used and modified, and construct your own version of my program that does a similar thing. I just don't want you to have access to my code because I worked my butt off making that, and if I give it to you for free, how am I going to make money now? You have to do your own work to compete with me, not mooch off of my work.

[sam_coder]

I don't find his stance on freedom as that confusing.
The way I understand it is this, is essentially:

Free to Use
Free to Change
Free to Distribute
Free to Distribute your changes

I don't see why you have to release your source code simply because you happen to depend on something that's GPL'd. I mean you'd need to state that you have this dependency, and release the portions of your code that might have modified that dependency. But you can license your code how you want. You can simply build it in a way, so that your application is closed source under license XYZ, and simply open source whatever integration is required to this GPL'd dependancy. I'm not honestly sure where to draw the line here. But the whole point is to protect the author, so that they can keep credit and rights to their own material, and be able to share it. Similarly, it protects you so that you can use it how you see fit, without any fear. It's not meant to be restrictive, unless you plan on taking credit for something someone else did.

But how is this different than anything else. I couldn't just include parts of Microsoft Office in my application. Granted Microsoft hasn't released that code. The difference is this author has released the code. Just because I can see the code, doesn't mean I own the code.

Also, you can also release your code under multiple licenses. And license it in a way that makes more sense. (ie, for commercial users, its under this license, and for students, its under this other less restricting license). You see this all the time, look at MySQL for example...

but I digress, I flunked law school!:cool:

[gregwarner]

sam_coder, the general attitude of the Free Software Foundation is that ALL software should be free and open source. What the FSF advocates promote is a moral obligation on the part of all coders to work under the GPL for the benefit of everybody. For more details on this attitude, check out Richard Stallman's essay (though I personally feel it is riddled with logical fallacies), Why Software Should Be Free - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

sam_coder said:

But the whole point is to protect the author

The FSF's whole point is to protect everybody's access to code, not to protect the author.

sam_coder said:

...so that they can keep credit and rights to their own material, and be able to share it.

They don't want the author to have rights to his or her own material. They want the authors to write under the GPL, which signs away all rights to keep the source closed, a necessity if you wish to write a software product in a commercial economy.

sam_coder said:

It's not meant to be restrictive, unless you plan on taking credit for something someone else did.

The GPL is actually quite restrictive, in that, if my code is derived from a GPL project, I must, that is, I'm compelled to release my code as GPL as well, even if this is not the most profitable action to take.

The cornerstone of the FSF's reasoning is the idea that no one can "own" software. It is merely information, and they promote an axiom that all information is and should be free. The fundamental flaw in this bedrock of their faith is that it takes real man hours of work to produce that information, and so it cannot be looked at so trivially as mere "information" as if it were floating about in the universe and one coder happened one day to go and pluck it out of the air.

Real, actual work is done to create software, and so real actual money has to be paid to the author. (Unlike those in the FSF, not all of us coders are willing to work for free in our spare time.) So in an economy like the one we live in, it is absolutely unfeasible to assume that, in every given instance, the GPL is the best license to release under. Sometimes, the author has to protect his work by keeping the source closed, because his method of earning a living is by selling the software he worked so hard over. If he released it under the GPL, there would be no reason for anyone to buy his software because anyone can just get it for free, since the source is readily available. Moreover, if our hypothetical coder has developed a revolutionary new algorithm that gives him an edge in the competitive market, releasing his source would give up his competitive edge because now every competitor could look at his code, see what he's done, and effortlessly integrate his revolutionary idea, which took him possibly years to develop, into their own products for absolutely no cost at all. Now our coder can't insure his financial success because everybody else has the same advantage he had.

FSF supporters feel they have a God-given right of access to all code, under the name of "the greater good", and a closed license infringes upon their human rights. This is entirely a false assumption. You do not have a right to see my code. If I develop an algorithm and want to keep it a secret because it benefits me financially to do so, there is nothing morally wrong with that. However, the FSF says it is morally wrong.

FSF supporters like to talk about "monopolies" as if our hypothetical coder is hoarding his new algorithm and maliciously keeping it away from the rest of us. But this idea is entirely off-base. A monopoly is one where I somehow exert a force on you which prohibits you from competing with me, for example, by hogging all the resources. That's not what our hypothetical coder is doing at all. You are free to research and develop your own algorithm that competes with his, but you can't just look at his work to do it. You have to do the work for yourself. A closed license does not meet the criteria for a monopoly.

The FSF claims that if I keep my code a secret, I am creating a monopoly over the whole industry on whatever function my code does. So by their own admission, since there's no way they could compete with me if I keep my code a secret, they are saying that they are not as clever of a coder as I am. :)

[sam_coder]

gregwarner,

Thanks for your reply! I enjoyed the read, and I can tell you've thought about it a lot more than I have!:)

Most of which I can see you're point. I think I have this problem where I inject too much of my own personal feelings.

I feel like you have Stallman on one side, and you have Jobs on the other.

When I look at my own ability to earn money, I look at myself more as a tradesman. It's not much different than someone who can work with wood. I do a job, I get paid.

The chances of me developing a product or an algorithm that'l make me rich, is so unlikely, that it's not really a serious consideration.

The benefits of an open source like economy, means that guys like me can build much more robust systems, much more quickly. I benefit, and my customers benefit. To me it makes good business sense.

[gregwarner]

sam_coder said:

The benefits of an open source like economy, means that guys like me can build much more robust systems, much more quickly. I benefit, and my customers benefit. To me it makes good business sense.

I do agree that there is a perfect time and place for open source, and even GPL code. It definitely has its place, and, when it suits me, I am happy to contribute to a GPL project.

It is only the coercive philosophy of the FSF that all software should morally and ethically be open source that I oppose. One must recognize and accept that there is a time and a place for closed source software, when it protects the interests of those who wrote it. The FSF people make a lot of assumptions about the nature of software and its inherent freedom. There is no magic rule of the universe that all software wants to be free. It doesn't exist.

It's interesting that you brought up [Steve] Jobs. There are a lot of different takes on commercial licensing, and it is perhaps the more overbearing ones that give commercial license advocates, such as myself, a bad name in the eye of the FSF. Richard Stallman would say that these malevolent authors have this to say about their work: “I put my sweat, my heart, my soul into this program. It comes from me, it's mine!” [from Stallman's essay I linked in my previous post.] Stallman is using a poor tactic here of painting the author as a greedy, self-centered egotist who won't let go of his program. While some commercial software developers may be exactly like this, most aren't, and most are just trying to earn a decent living. Steve Jobs may be an extreme example, and, while he certainly has made a successful business for himself, I certainly have my complaints about his business methods.

Later, when I have more time, I plan on typing up a full review of Stallman's essay, addressing each of his logical mistakes he makes in it. Unfortunately, my work takes up most of my day, so I have very little time to actually write anything besides code. :)