I believe we have overestimated the need and importance that people put on open source software over the need for free software (free as in price in this context, gratis).
he goes on to expound on how a free-as-in-beer proprietary product that does the job goes a long way to stunting, if not outright killing, open source efforts. when it comes to mass-market, user-level software this does sum up the status quo pretty well.
however, he states it as if this were a natural law and something that is immovable. personally i believe the reason it remains the unquestioned status quo is because of us, the free and open source software communities. we each have our bit to play in this so-far-failure to get people to appreciate free-as-in-freedom software.
the free software foundation (fsf) presents it in terms of ethics and academic argumentation. while i agree with much of what they say and wholeheartedly support what they are doing, it's also undeniable that their message influences a small percentage of the populace. why? probably because to truly appreciate stallman's philosophies requires reading them and then really thinking about them. most people don't do much of that anymore. you also need a fairly broad understanding of the state of various aspects of "intellectual property" law and how industry interacts with it. it's a complex issue that they tackle with a complex analysis. no wonder most people don't "get it". it's like trying to explain traffic safety using calculus. you can, but most people won't "get it".
those of us who are pragmatists and aren't out to kill proprietary software (i'd be one of those people, btw) often don't stand up and say much about the value of freedom software. why? probably because few outside the fsf have constructed messages that resonate and are easily repeatable. the open source initiative did and look how successful it was ... except they avoided talking much about benefits that flow directly from the freedom aspects of open source software or show the cause-effect of freedom-benefit. they just avoid it.
and nobody else has really stepped up. want to know something that the proprietary companies can't compete with us on by definition? freedom. so they avoid it and for some bizarre reason so do we. well, it's not a bizarre reason i suppose: the fsf has scared many (most?) people away from standing up on that topic ("oh god. i'm going to come off sounding / looking /smelling like rms. *shudder*") and the pragmatists have been busy working on pragmatically making the software better. in any case we simply don't tout the biggest factor that has real-world and easily-understood benefit for individuals, business, government and dolphins (ok, i'm no so sure about dolphins) that we win hands-down on.
so it's no surprise that people will pragmatically pick free-as-in-beer when available and not bother to work on free-as-in-freedom in those cases: we haven't shown the value proposition and therefore given people motivation to do it.
i think we can. we need to start talking about the immediate and personally meaningful results of free software in simple, practical terms. community, sovereignty and mitigating business risk are three categories that probably resonate with a lot of people if myspace, that whole national democracy fad that's been going on for the last few centuries ;) and the amount spent on legalese every year are any signs.
so i'd suggest to us all, including miguel, that instead of cowering beneath the shadow of the free-as-in-beer threat that we actually remind people how they want things that only are available when they use free-as-in-freedom software.
(oddly related tangent: i only buy bowls, plates, cups, etc that are microwave safe. why? because i like to use the microwave to heat things up. why? it's fast and effective. so my dish purchasing decisions are influenced because i want to quickly heat things. only after noting that a thing will survive the microwave do i bother making an aesthetic decision. i bet i'm not alone.)
20 comments:
I think the point is that GPL software can't really get in in the Gratis category, bacause, who really sells GPL software?, when some one sells GPL software prolly someone will take the code recompiled and distributed in a Gratis way,what you sell is the service and support provided for the maintanance for that software, Gratis software could be distributed for no money because lets faces end user don't wan't/ need/ or know what it is or how to use it, now if the point is Stallman's philosophy of freedom then that's something different, I personally never needed or ever wanned the source code of the software I use. Id' say that I must agree with de Icaza on this, because he is talking about Gratis, not Freedom, wan't freedom? use GPL, but for most of us who only need Gratis software GPL is not needed, now who are the ones who mostly promote GPL software? I can grant you that developers are the 90% of the promoters and they represent prolly the 5% of the users.
Other think you must remember is that de Icaza is not a GPL promoter, the promotes Open Source/Gratis, not GPL, you are a GPL promoter because thet tools you use are GPL, so I think your opinion is just in another category, from the GPL point of view wich is totally different for the "Free as in beer" point fo view.
Too bad RMS and the Free Software Foundation are throwing their weight (and financial sponsorship) behind sell-outs like Icaza and the GNOME weaklings who follow him.
Icaza is the founder GNOME, whose supporters flaunt the ability to write DRM-infested proprietary applications on the LGPL'ed GTK framework. Disgusting!
KDE has strong copyleft protection due to Qt being licensed as GPL. KDE is therefore more free from a user's perspective. Keep the Linux desktop free, use KDE!
Well, KDELibs are LGPL that turns KDE into a "sell-out" acording to your philosophy.
And some KDE apps. use libraries created by GNOME developers, and acording to you that tuns it into "DRM" supporters.
first off, let's not turn this into a "my dad is bigger than your dad" gnome vs kde vs godzilla thing. this is strictly about miguel being wrong. ;)
@ramsees: when you talk about not really needing the source code and therefore it's not really about the freedom, etc ... all i can say is that you are the prime example of someone that uses open source software but does not understand the inextricable connection between the ability for others (not necessarily you) to have access to the source code for modification and redistribution and your access to both gratis software and higher quality software that also happens to respect your inalienable rights as a human being..
so please don't even try and argue "but it doesn't matter to me" because, know it or not, it does. even if you never even look at the source code yourself. the fact that you aren't aware of the connections is exactly what we need to fix and testament that we have not done a good job in this regard.
as for Icaza promoting "open source" versus free software, it may be interesting to go back 7 or more year back and listen to his vitriolic campaign against kde for not being free software due to qt not being under the gpl. no, what Icaza is is an opportunist going wherever he thinks the wind blows kindest and fairest.
me, i want to see not just freedom prevail but be able to have a good time while also being ethical.
Well when I say that I don't really mind to have the source or not, Im talking about me, what is wrong is when some one take the flag of " we are defending your freedom" when I don't really wan't them to represent my freedom, because at the end everybody has its personal concept of Freedom, and I can't grant you that I don't see GPL as my freedom, if you see it that way, good for you, but don't take that flag that you know what my or anyone else freedom is, because I don't remember asking any one be it you, Stallman or who ever to stand a defend "my freedom" if I don't totally believe in it.
Now If I remember it was de Icaza who emailed to Stallman to talk about KDE and he even wrote some patches for it, but at that moment Stallman's answer was "KDE is not for us due the license", it never existed a "vitriolic" campaing as you said, that is something to much exploited in the KDE project this days, to play the victim.
Now, what options GPL have for those who can't share their code? none, there is some of them who can't and simple GPL doesn't cover that need, so if ammong them GPL haven't been succesfull enought is because the lack of flexibility of the GPL, I don't know if you even know because you make a living with GPL software you are part of a lucky minority but the mayority simple see the world in a less utopic way.
Typo corrections.
intead of:
"and I can't grant you that I don't see GPL as my freedom"
Read:
"And I can grant you that I don't see GPL as my freedom"
instead of:
"That is something to much exploited in the KDE project this days, to play the victim."
Read:
"That is something to much exploited in the KDE project these days, to play the victim."
My pessimistic question: does the average person/computer user care whether their web browser is free-as-in-beer software as opposed to free-as-in-speech software ?
Based on what i have seen thus far, it does not seem they do. There is a 0.92 probability that the average person/computer user will be running Windows on their PC at home.
I guess i could call it social apathy or indifference. Sure, free-as-in-speech software has general public appeal, but not because it's free-as-in-speech, but because the average computer user doesn't have to pay for it.
Let's not underestimate the power of cash, and at the same time let's not overestimate the power of idealism. We live in a society where cash has historically been more successful at achieving its goals than idealism has. I do not see this changing any time soon, unfortunately.
no you are not alone hahaha :p
Over here in my country, I believe it is a lack of awareness of Open Source. People who use Open Source are mainly just users and go like 'HEY freebie!'.
But I guess we got to start somewhere.
Reading the comments here just proves that freedom of code doesn't matter to people unless they've bothered to spend a significant amount of time investigating the issue, and additionally have a slight preference for "left" values.
I stand behind your view, Aaron, and I'm reading many of the texts concerning this topic, but still it's very hard for me to communicate the essence of why freedom is more important than price. I have troubles explaining a Skype user why proprietatery protocols are questionable when Skype is available for free on most platforms, and why mailing .doc files is a bad thing when I can open them without glitches in OpenOffice.
I know you're a great talker and know how to communicate this to people, so if you have the time, I'd highly appreciate some sort of "manual", or a few tips and tricks on making people aware of the practical difference between free and gratis software.
I think, the main difficulty come from the language. I can take the exemple of french (i am french), we don't have any problem to show how free as in freedom is more secure than free as gratis because we do have two words (libre and gratuit). So the reflexion about the both meening was take when we learn language.
But it don't give any solution.
> I think, the main difficulty come
> from the language. I can take the
> exemple of french (i am french),
> we don't have any problem to show
> how free as in freedom is more
> secure than free as gratis
> because we do have two words
> (libre and gratuit).
Right (in principle, German does also differentiate the two meanings), but hey, if I'm someone who doesn't care too much about computers, what do I imagine when I think of "libre" software? The language can lay the foundation for an explanation, but we still have to communicate what it actually means and why it matters to the one I'm talking to.
Of course, the English language makes it even harder than it already is.
Great blog. I think this reflects my feelings exactly.
Stallman often holds a lecture titled "Copyright vs Comunity" ... and it's a great presentation starting from the time copyright did not exists, progressing to how and why copyright appeared, and how it's just overblown today.
But I often find... when trying to bring those ideas closer to my friends, coleagues and other people... that they just don't value, or they don't understand the notion of community. It seems to me that they have this idea that society is based on the actions of single men, and can't at all grasp that what we humans are, what we value is the creation of people working, colaborating, or having fun together.
For example, imagine having all the music in the world on your hard-drive. What will you listen, how will you know what's good or bad... and when you find some excelent music don't you wan't to share it to your friends?
Or with software, the more people use it, the more they find bugs, the more people can colaborate with you, the more can suggest improvements, the more can implement improvements... of course only if the softeare is free, free-as-in-freedom can this be accomplished.
I think its important for all of us to get the bigger picture. Indeed Free Software is not about gratis its about freedom. But to understand this you have to be able to connect "copyright, history, law, politics, kapitalisme, ethics, philosophy, big company's, media, etc"... That is not an easy thing to do for most people as they won't even read a text of the FSF by RMS. Instead people tend to complain about DRM and then buy Ipod, Vista etc... They should understand the implications of this technology
I support most ideas of RMS. His logic is perfect and his vision is very to the point. I hope he can get a bigger puplic that do understand him
I think its important for all of us to get the bigger picture. Indeed Free Software is not about gratis its about freedom. But to understand this you have to be able to connect "copyright, history, law, politics, kapitalisme, ethics, philosophy, big company's, media, etc"... That is not an easy thing to do for most people as they won't even read a text of the FSF by RMS. Instead people tend to complain about DRM and then buy Ipod, Vista etc... They should understand the implications of this technology
I support most ideas of RMS. His logic is perfect and his vision is very to the point. I hope he can get a bigger puplic that do understand him
probably because to truly appreciate stallman's philosophies requires reading them and then really thinking about them.
No, we've already read them and we're not drinking his cult koolaid and we know Stallman is about politics and not real freedom.
Real freedom is public domain. The GPL is not freedom.
> Real freedom is public domain.
> The GPL is not freedom.
This statement implies that there is one truth, namely that the GPL is not free because it's restricted. I find such a comment pretty one-sided, and it's the ideal base for flames (which we do not want, right?).
But it's really a question of the point of view. Public domain and BSD-like licenses allow everything, even closing down the code, and are therefore most usable for programmers. The GPL is restrictive in that it requires the code to stay open, and therefore is better for guaranteed continued availability, which benefits the end user most.
You made it clear that you prefer public domain, but don't be as bold as to say "I am right and you are wrong". In fact, both camps are right, both types of licenses are free, just from a different point of view.
> The GPL is restrictive in that it requires
> the code to stay open,
Well, no.. it only requires the code to be open if you distribute it.
You can keep you GPL derived code closed all you want, just don't distribute it.
@aseigo: As I was reading Miguel's blog I was feeling quite uneasy, but I am afraid, that he is mostly right; as I read it, his essay was not that much what people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do what they DO, and why Mono is doing much better than different free Java environments (which may be matter of dispute, of course).
And yes, more education would help, but I am afraid, that just to some level -- most important is IMHO experience and all teenagers who first met Linux are still in the state of shock, that they've got DVD full of wonderful software for free. It takes some time and experience to actively prefer kpdf (which is excellent, BTW) over Adobe Acrobat.
@jakob petsovits:
I don't what's your relation to the religion, but I cannot avoid to think about why God did gave us the crazy (and irresponsible) opportunity sin (which was almost immediately misused; I don't know what would RMS think if I would tell him, that he is orthodox reformed theologian holding predestination ;-)).
I don't think you can force anybody (actually, you can, but whether you SHOULD do it) to be nice and after couple of corporations got burned with GPL (C++ compiler and some other examples RMS uses so happily), rather than force them to cooperate on free software, they run away or limit their cooperation only to LGPL/X-MIT free software.
@Matěj: oh, i agree that he's right about his take on what people -do-. where i depart from his blog entry is that it doesn't have to be that way. the reason it is that way is that we have never actively positioned the pragmatic benefits of free(dom) sofwtare as core features in our communication and marketing efforts.
so the average person never looks at a piece of software and says "hey, i require $BENEFIT_OF_FREE_SOFTWARE so this software better be open source!" they have never been given this metric and so they never apply it.
we can change that, "simply" by communicating what those benefits are (which includes both enumerating them and stating -why- they are important in ways that resonate with the average person in $TARGET_AUDIENCE) and then attaching that message directly to our technologies as often and as loudly as possible in public.
then even if microsoft -did- bring their c# to linux, miguel's mono would be safe.
Post a Comment