- web developer
- open source enthusiast
- drupal geek
I live in Christchurch NZ, and enjoy mountain biking, snowboarding and contributing to open source and geeking out with my MacBook.
more


On Saturday I was fortunate to be able to see Richard Stallman speak right here in Christchurch, NZ. He spoke on "free software in ethics and practice"; the issues of non-free software, how it affects our society, what the FSF is doing about it, what we as individuals and computer users can do about it and free software in schools and education. He spoke extensively on the "four freedoms" that software users should be entitled to and even suggested they should be classed as human rights. He also promoted the FSF, giving away stickers, selling his book, selling stuffed (animal) gnus and encouraging folk to join the FSF.
While the talk was thoroughly enjoyable, I don't agree with some of the fundamental ideas on which the free software foundation and movement is founded. I wouldn't consider myself part of the "free-software movement" as Richard defines it, nor would I consider formally joining it. I associate much more with the "Open Source" (also as Richard defines it) camp, and am open to the existence and use of proprietary software.
I use and I am happy to use and pay for proprietary software while;
I find Richard's points of view rather extreme. I believe that proprietary software can and does have a place in our society and economy, without negative effects on society. Of course, as in any industry, there are nasty folk, often tending to be monolithic corporations, whose behaviour, such as the moral abuse of software they create, has negative effects on society. However even if all software were free, these people would still be nasty, greedy and contribute negatively to society -- possibly in different industries or with different media.
Further, I believe that without sales-funded development of non-free software, software, whether free, open source or proprietary, would not be as advanced as it is today. That is not to say that I prefer proprietary software over open source or free software; I don't. But I do accept it.
There were a few points and quotes that I found particularly interesting, controversial or entertaining;
"When a friend asks you to share [proprietary] software with them, you can either say 'No' which is evil because they are your friend, or you can say 'Yes' which is evil because you are breaking the agreement with the software distributor. There are two solutions to this problem; 1. Don't have any friends, that's what proprietary software implies, or 2. don't use proprietary software."
(or something to that effect)
"It's as if there's someone drowning. If you can swim and there's no one else around, you should save them -- as long as that person is not Bush.
(or something to that effect)
As I have noticed elsewhere in my limited observations of the free software movement, I noticed a number of subtle similarities to religious movements. Personally I find this a little off-putting, almost disturbing. Richard's sketch on "The Church of Emacs", although it was entirely fictitious and entertaining, suggests to me that Richard realizes this, and perhaps even enjoys, provokes or encourages this.
The "Church of Emacs" sketch.
The talk was at the University of Canterbury where I take some Computer Science papers. It was well-attended and was part of the "GNU Zealand Tour". Richard recorded the session and said the recording would be made available under a creative commons no-derivatives license. If or when I find it I'll update this blog.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Bevan Rudge, and are not representative of any company or other individual.
UPDATE: I found someone who seems to, at least in part, agree with me; foobar on geekzone.
Comments
RMS's point is that users
RMS's point is that users cannot live in freedom whenever they accept proprietary software. How can one live in freedom if one requires permission to help themselves? How can one live in freedom if one is required to be divided from their community before they obtain permission to share and cooperate with their community?
Software proprietors subjugate and divide users by virtue of not granting the users of their essential freedoms. Software proprietors should not have this sort of power over users but this is exactly what happens when users accept proprietary software.
Only free software allows users to live in freedom; this is the only logical conclusion of all the facts.
I like your explanation of
I like your explanation of his views. Your summary is clear and simple to understand.
Today I listened to a recording of an interview with RMS on Radio NZ which clarified a few of my notes above. I quote Richard "I want freedom more than I want innovation." and "[Proprietary software] is an attractive nuisance."
Nevertheless I don't consider myself to be lacking freedom in my life because of the proprietary software that I use. I, even as a programmer, would not feel any more free if I were using only free software. In fact I would feel inhibited because there is not currently free software available that allows me to do certain tasks that I can do with proprietary software.
Granted, if that proprietary software were free, I would be a little happier that it is at least open source (given that it's free it must also be open source, if I understand correctly). However I certainly would not feel that my life is freer. Nor would I look at or change it's source code in 95% or more of the cases.
If I, as an open source programmer have no burning desire for proprietary software to be abolished, I can hardly expect any non-programmer to know the difference, care about or understand the difference or even listen to an explanation of what 'free software' is. How is a non-programmer going to be or feel more 'free' in their life? I think it's unrealistic for other programmers to expect this of non-programmers.
Of course this is only my opinion. I know others have their own different opinions. I respect, appreciate and value those opinions.
It's a shame you didn't leave a link, I would have liked to contact you IRT this response.
Non-Programmers
I drive a little Toyota hatchback. I do so because I got it relatively cheap from my sister-in-law. This was possible because she owned the car, not a non-transferable license to use the car under certain conditions.
I know how to pump up the tyres and refill the thing that squirts water on the windscreen. That's all I know about maintaining the vehicle, and probably all I ever will know. I take it to the local mechanic of my choice every couple of years and he fustigates the Smoot-Hawley flanges or whatever for me, at what I can only assume is a reasonable price.
I am very glad that the bonnet was not locked shut at the factory by Toyota, and that there is not a Drivable Motor Vehicle Act (DMVA) to make it a criminal offense for anybody to attempt to service their own car, or pay somebody other than the manufacturer to service it. I may not personally know the first thing about it's inner workings, but if I suspect I'm being charged to much for some work on my car, I can go a few hundred metres up the road to the next mechanic who can provide me with a quote.
Most of these mechanics probably chose this trade after opening up the bonnet of their own car and having a playful poke around, the same way I learned how to program computers. Now as Richard Stallman would say, the ethical issues around car manufacturing and software manufacturing are not the same; I don't have the legal right to make a perfect copy of my car, but that's okay because I don't have the practical means to do so - no matter how much technical skill I am able to acquire, and neither does anybody but very large corporations, so losing that freedom (through patents) doesn't cost me anything, while potentially delivering the benefits to society that the patent system is supposed to provide.
But if somebody paid me to write some software for them and I said "okay, I'll write it for you, but only under the condition that you don't copy it or attempt to fix or improve it yourself, or pay somebody else to fix or improve it," that would be a very bad deal for the customer, because the means to do these things are so cheap that you are practically only paying for the time of the person who does the work (or not, if you do it yourself). It would be such a bad deal in fact, that if I managed to convince a sucker to fall for it, I would have to regard my own behaviour as unethical.
Granted there aren't as many programmers as motor vehicle mechanics in my town, but that can and should change. Already I can point to half a dozen people I know who could (and hopefully will) become as familiar with the inner workings of Drupal as myself with only a little effort. As this begins to happen across a wide range of software the real cost of proprietary software (as opposed to the mere price tag), and the benefits of freedom, will become apparent to even the most non-technical users.
Matthew, Thank you for your
Matthew,
Thank you for your thoughts and insights. This metaphor has helped me to understand Richard's and your views and ideas a little better.
Are you the anonymous commentor above?
No, we're just both singing
No, we're just both singing from the same FSF hymn book. I should say also that the car analogy is far from original. Bob Young, who co-founded Red Hat, and is firmly in the Open Source camp famously asked "Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?"
And over on the free software side of the fence, RMS has said:
SaaS is not open.
"Richard considers SaaS to be non-free based on the principal that you do not have control over the system computing your data, even if the server-side and client-side software employed in that SaaS are all free."
Well obviously Richard is right here. People can't fix the bugs in the software they use, and even the source code isn't typically available with SaaS. The AGPL and http://autonomo.us/ are about fixing that.
AGPL protects software, not data
The AGPL was co-written by Henry Poole, whom I work with at CivicActions (which Henry cofounded).
I believe the AGPL is NOT designed to safe-guard a user's data when being computed on a third party server. I believe it is designed to make the GPL practical and enforceable on software that is designed to run publicly on servers, as opposed to privately on individual machines. AFAICT there is a good argument that the Drupal project and other similar server-side open source software should be released on the AGPL, and not the GPL. See this comment on onlinegroups.net to this effect on a related issue. I have asked Henry to clarify this.
> Well obviously Richard is right here.
I mentioned the SaaS point because I find it interesting. I don't disagree with Richard's view on this issue.
Post new comment