An interesting debate has started between important people in the open source circles. Stallman and Kuhn in their essay ‘Freedom or Power?‘ state that: “However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to choose any license you want for software you write […] We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.” Eric S. Raymond fights back: “In other words, Stallman and Kuhn want to be able to make decisions that affect other developers more than themselves. By the definition they themselves have proposed, they want power”. Tim O’Reilly started the debate: “If Freedom Zero for developers is the freedom to offer software on whatever terms the developer sets and a user will accept; Freedom Zero for users is the right to choose whatever software they like, without interference from platform vendors who try to deny that choice.”
RMS/Kuhn, Raymond, O’Reilly on the Freedom to Choose Licenses
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well now that the dot.com has bomb, I suspect alot of developers will
not be so supportive of Stallman’s philosophy, when the pay check dries
up the last thing on their mind will be writing free software for the mass
I totally agree with E. Raymond, his definition of freedom (he called it “flerbage”) is the closest to mine:
– I think freedom is the ability to make your own decision, to express what you want to express, to do what you want to do… as soon as you don’t limit the freedom of others.
So if I write a software: whatever is the license I choose, whether I ask money for it or not, whether I distribute source code or not, I DO NOT LIMIT YOUR FREEDOM, rather I extend your freedom to choose a new product. You have the freedom to choose and use it, following the conditions I required. I you don’t like the product or the conditions, you have the freedom to choose another software.
Free software is good as soon as people that write these softwares have decided on their own that they wanted to released them under such conditions.
OK people releasing software under GPL are “good people” (if they don’t ask money for their work they are even “better people”), but nobody can force them to do it, even the “I am the new Jesus, I will tell you what is good and what is wrong, and you must do what I’m asking you” Mr Richard Stallman.
Mr Stallman, your movement is a good one, for many reasons, but if people don’t want to follow you, this is their freedom, they don’t need you to release good software, and they don’t limit your own freedom.
Rodolph
Right, that’s a libertarian definition of freedom and it makes a lot of sense, ignoring the context of the modern world (a libertarian state would be an enemy of democracy and hence a valid target for US missiles and troops)
The libertarian freedom “flerbage” is incompatible with proprietary software, at least in its existing forms, because your decision to copy, improve or mass market someone else’s software is NOT an infringement of their freedom in that sense.
So if you build in “flerbage” you get Free Software anyway. Which just goes to show how stupid these “ultimate freedom” arguments were right from the beginning.
How can you say – “The libertarian freedom “flerbage” is incompatible with proprietary software” ?
Perhaps you should read the article more carefully…
“I’m going to invent a nonsense word now: “flerbage”. And I’m going to define it. I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent”
now somebody else releasing proprietary software does not cross those defined boundaries, therefore it does not limit your fierbage, therefore in this context (the effect of someone else’s sofwtare license affecting you) proprietary software licenses are not incompatible with fierbage.
Now it may be true that your decision to improve or mass market someone else’s software does not impede their fierbage, though it might be argued that by using their work without their consent and profiting from it, you are therefore using their time, thus limiting their fierbage. However even if you do not agree with this argument the fact that breaking a license does not limit someone else’s fierbage does not make the license incompatible with fierbage – it just means they are unconnected in this particular context (the effect of you breaking someone else’s software license terms on them).
“Which just goes to show how stupid these “ultimate freedom” arguments were right from the beginning. ”
Mr Raymond intentionally and specifically defined and limited the meaning of “fierbage” to prevent it from being a stupid “ultimate freedom” argument.
These guys are nutso.
“These guys are nutso. ”
Quite possibly (in my case I’m sure there are people who would say definately), but the question being discussed is an interesting one, and as a professional developer, a rather important one to me.
Richard Stallman believes he has a right to determine the agreement I and my customer can come to between ourselves, and in so doing affect ny ability to earn recompense for my skills, study, and work.
I say he should keep his nose out of my business.
If someone wants to release something under the GPL then that’s fine. And if and when I fix, modify or improve the code of a GPL application to better suit my purpose I will happily put my source changes back into the pot, because that’s only fair.
But if I and a customer come to an agreement in which they pay me money for an application, and agree not to pass it on to anyone else, then don’t go getting upset because I won’t let YOU profit from MY work.
“So if I write a software: whatever is the license I choose, whether I ask money for it or not, whether I distribute source code or not, I DO NOT LIMIT YOUR FREEDOM, rather I extend your freedom to choose a new product. You have the freedom to choose and use it, following the conditions I required. I you don’t like the product or the conditions, you have the freedom to choose another software.”
This is an extremely simplistic model of social interaction that completely fails to appreciate the importance of software or the realities of software licensing. It is possible that publishing your software provides me with a new option without taking away existing ones. Opera and Mozilla might be good examples of these: one is free, one is restrictively licensed, but both open up new possibilities for me: I now have more options than I did before for browsing the Web.
On the other hand, it is possible that your software will actually take choices away from me. Windows is a good example of that. When it was first published, it was perhaps just another operating system. But it would be naive to say that Windows is just one of many choices of operating system. Today, if I cannot use Windows, I am effectively barred (especially if I am an average user and not a technically savvy hacker) from participating in many important aspects of society that, ten years ago, were either unimportant or did not depend specifically on being able to run Windows. This is not necessarily because Windows has unique enabling features that no other software can provide, but because many parts of society have adapted themselves to work with Windows specifically, shutting out everyone else. In this case, I must either accept whatever terms Microsoft dictates or else I cannot participate in these aspects of society. I still have a choice, but it is a Hobson’s choice. Whichever option I choose, Microsoft has, directly or indirectly, exerted power that has resulted in a reduction of my freedom and my ability to participate as a member of my own society and culture.
Freedom and power are more complicated than RMS or ESR tend to portray them. Fundamentally, in order for me to have absolute freedom, I must be able to exercise absolute power over everyone else. Your actions always have implications for my freedom, and vice versa. One way to recognize this might be not to require that software be released (license-)free, but to set forth certain minimum, unwaivable, rights that members of the public in general and software licensees in particular have to use software. For example, a requirement that no vendor can require as a term of licensing that the end user submit to remote monitoring of his or her useage of the software, or to be required to pay ongoing license fees for continued use of the software. A sort of charter of fair use rights for software.
I like how Stallman goes into a diatribe about power being making decisions that affect others more than you, and how all of that plays a large role in society, while power is ‘bad’ and freedom is ‘good’…
Then he goes and says:
“Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted without royalty in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.”
I do beleieve that sentence is a power act… When will people wake up and realize that he’s a backwards, power-mongering hypocrite?
In this case, I must either accept whatever terms Microsoft dictates or else I cannot participate in these aspects of society.
How?
I’m really confused on how the ‘rest of the world’ using MS Windows cut you out of society? OK, you can’t play all the games, but you can still play computer games (either Open Source, or buy a Mac), you can still browse the net, read email, hell even read MS Word documents. I KNOW you can live without Windows, i’ve done it, and will again.
Stallman and Kuhn:
‘However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to choose any license you want for software you write”. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.”‘
The main problem I see with this is that we are talking about software licenses, not criminal acts. Let’s not exaggerate. What possible *rational* argument is going to convince the legislative assembly of your respective governments that we need to create laws to enforce mandatory GPL on software? It’s fine to restrict my freedoms to protect me from the criminal acts of others (and vice versa), choosing one software license over another is not in the same category IMHO. The place for choice of software/software licenses is in the marketplace (of all software, open and closed source), not the courts.
Stallman and Kuhn want the *power* to force usage of their software license alone. Their point is moot anyway, it’s not going to happen; it goes against the tenets of free speech and enterprise. Powerless, frustrated, hypocrites!