Slashdot Mirror
Freedom or Power?
mpawlo writes: "As reported by Gnuheter, a new essay published by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman carries the title "Freedom or Power?". The authors state something that we might have suspected from essays from Kuhn and Stallman before, but now is a little more clear, if still ambiguous: "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 essay is interesting in the light of an earlier essay published by Eric S Raymond. ... Tim O'Reilly started the debate with his weblog of July 28, 2001: My definition of freedom zero."
Ed. note - FWIW, Stallman and Kuhn are right. Not necessarily in their advocacy of the GPL, but certainly in their description of whether licensing is freedom for the developer or power over others. All licensing stems from copyright law, a completely man-made creation whose sole purpose is to give the writer of creative works artificial power over what others do with those works. If you take the canonical description of freedom ("Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins") and apply it to software, it's pretty clear that true freedom would not let one person control what another does with software.
ends where my face begins.
The fundamental problem with anarchism lies in this statement. Open Source's GPL itself requires a heirarchy to maintain it, although it was designed to fight a heirarchy.
You need a body of people who act similarly to the RIAA or whomever, investigating people's GPL licenses and behaviors with Open Source software and its derivatives.
Of course, the "GPL police" would wind up chasing large corporations or developers who wish to appropriate GPL'd tech in closed source projects. This would make them rather ineffective, due to the financial disparities between the OSS movement and corporations.
So, OSS is going to have to do what M$ does, and that is buy into the government through a lobbying system.
Goat sex free since 2001
true freedom would mean I can't be thrown in jail for murdering a bus full of kids.
Not able to license however I want? Get real.
Look. I'll be the first to advocate the use of free/oss software. Stuff that the community can use and build upon. In fact, in more than just software, I'm in favor of nothing really stopping people from doing things for the common good.
However. If I write software, with my time, and my effort, then nobody is going to tell ME under what terms I may let someone else use it. Period.
I'm not a fan of over-broad IP law, but I'm also not an advocate of ditching it altogether.
I'm not totally opposed to communism.. but that's basically what Stallman wants. Communist hippie software (literally). Great. Good for him. Communies can be fantastic in the right circumstances, with the right group of people.
But the majority of the world is based upon power. Supply and demand, money, greed, etc.
I don't understand RMS's obsession with powerless freedom.
Any freedom that means something is, in some way, an expression of power.
The freedom to own my own home and house my family is meaningless unless I can exercise the power to keep others out.
The freedom to speak out against the government is empty unless there is power to prevent government censorship.
The GPL's guarantees of freedom to take, use, modify and distribute source code are meaningless without the power to enforce them.
Freedom without power is no freedom at all.
What is freedom if not power?
I think RMS and the FSF are going to start losing ground, because they're going to fall into the trap of many politicians who want to change the world: they're going to offend the moderates.
I'm speaking as a USian, of course. As everyone knows, despite the media's obsession with polarized (right and left) politics, the US population is really a vast pool of people with relatively moderate views. Sure, some of them are sharply polarized about *issues* (abortion rights, the economy, whatever), but by and large, they're in the middle of the political spectrum. The first thing a candidate does is hit up his support of the issues while trying to not appear too far to one side, lest he offend the moderates.
There are a lot of people who like the GPL, because it prevents proprietary lock-in and helps create a sense of empowerment and community. The problem, I feel, is that once you put the GPL in your code, you're putting it (and yourself) into the "camp" of the FSF. You're now essentially signing on to the RMS/FSF game plan, even if all you wanted was to see your code not get folded into a proprietary product, and let as many people as possible play with things.
MS kept saying, once you start down the path of the GPL, there's no going back. I hate to say it, but maybe they're right. For all their talk about a software "ecosystem", contrasted against stuff like this, it makes me think they (MS) might have been right after all.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
What I think I see in the article is an arguement for greater social accountability. Although I'm not as radicalized to the point of out right bans I think there is a value social message in this essay. Through freedom of involvement one promotes the development of a community to properly debate and develop the implications of an idea. Software is an example of this as you cannot debate its merits without access to its code. Without this right one does not have a strong community and does not promote civil involvement.
I see this especially clear in representive democracies as there closed nature leads to little political participation. Where in the Free Software/Open Source community, with an open forum one has a very strong level of debate. This is fundamental for a proper democracy.
Now what I see in this article is that Kuhn and Stallman is an argument that one has to ensure that there is a proper forum for civil debate. By defining the licenses of software you are defining their role in the public forum. They are against non-free licenses because they hinder social growth, which is an argument you could say about many governments and countries. They do not provide the tools or encourage proper debate.
Anyways that my two cents. I hope it makes sense.
Freedom as being described in these articles, isn't the same freedom many of us are accustomed to. Rather, it is being declared in a very atypical self-censored form.
This freedom is more clearly labeled Freedom 0, as O'Reilly does in his original article. A limited freedom in the sense that it is a freedom of choice to be exercised; a freedom of choosing and not a freedom of acting.
Most governments have established freedom for their citizens insofar as that freedom does not interfere with that same freedom in others. But as a whole, we have really failed to analyze the types of freedom this empowers us with, and the freedoms we are limited to.
It would appear RMS is reembracing this application of freedom, in only the strictest sense.
"The freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins" as another reader so eloquently put it. It would appear Freedom 0 is only an attempt to analyze where exactly our faces begin; where exactly do we limit the freedoms we have previously, commonly accepted. And perhaps moreso, a new obersavation asserting that our faces are far closer to the swinging fists than we previously accepted. And so, as a new standard to be raised in the light of the digital age, where new freedoms are discovered, but still under the threshold of out-dated control, in a realm that continuously promises new freedoms.
It is impossible to make that same examination-the assertion of only Freedom 0-in a Democratic Capitalistic society, such as the US, because of the many contradictions it would bring to light. Capitalism cannot suceed without the unipmeded effort to exploit the resources of the masses for personal gain.
The very freedom RMS espouses is contraindicative of a capitalist society. And in my opinion, only in the borderless benevolent anarchy of the internet can such a freedom be exhorted, as it now is.
It cannot apply to our physical world, at least not in the way commonly accepted by the various World Powers. But in the indefinite information space that is shared by all does this concept deserve its greatest relevance.
Freedom 0 can not work without common acceptance. It would be hypocritical of this limited freedom to be forced upon ourselves, without all parties first declaring a willingness to be limited by it.
So in the sense that this new formula for freedom is an expression of power itself, it is my personal opinion, that under willing acceptance it is not so.
As has been previously recounted, freedom is only an idea, an abstraction that has no basis for our real world interactions, but rather only on our choosing of them.
It is only under common acceptance of freedom, that we can govern in its name.
So too, is this also with Freedom 0.
One must withold their right to freely define freedom, to afford the benefits its acceptance can provide.
So the very concept of freedom itself is quite paradoxical, or at least contradicting, there is no question of that. It is only in its acceptance by many, does freedom really materialize in an expressable shape.
And I, for one, am all for Freedom 0
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.
This just doesn't sit well with me at all. I don't demand that the people who create software I use release under the GPL over whatever license it is currently using. I *will* look for alternatives, with my priorities being cost and opensource, in that order. Remember, this is a 'free software' group speaking, not the 'open source' group; big difference. A manifest destiny declaring all software should be GPL'ed should be met with serious opposition.
My code, that I work on, is mine. I owe to no one the work that was involved. (Code produced for an employer is different. For now, I mean code I do on my spare time.) *If*, and this is a big If, if I distribute my code in any form to anyone, it is entirely at my descretion. I own my work, and I'll do with it what I please. I am very happy to abide by the GPL in gpl'ed code. The reason is it's *their* code I'm using. These are *their* conditions they want the code used for, and I will keep my end of the bargain in return for their generosity in providing for everyone. If I don't like it, I don't *have* to use their code.
No one, not even RMS, is going to tell John Carmack that Doom 3 *has* to be released under the GPL. However, if RMS wants to spout that His Immenence Carmack is taking advantage of power, he would cause more harm than good. John Carmack knows the value of the GPL, and has shown this many many times over, with the release of Wolf3d and Doom source code, followed by the GPL of the Doom and Quake source. This has done tremendous things for the home brew gaming community, and while he can't measure in dollars the good he has done, I hope he has even a close approximation of the help he has provided in the releasing GPL. I will follow to the letter every section of the GPL in any work I do based on John's released software; not out of fear for lawyers, but out of respect for John's contribution. His gift.
No one has the right to say what we can or cannot do with our 'art', code in this case. RMS can spout anything he likes, but the moment he decides that my release of SuperWhizBangTurbo MUST be GPL'd is the exact moment his freedom to swing ends at my nose.
RMS, we appreciate what you've done, and what you fail to realize is the sheer enormity of code released daily under the GPL. However, what your proposing is not 'increasing the freedoms of computer users everywhere', you are 'taking away the rights of programmers everywhere'. We do, have been, and will continue to release under the GPL at every opportunity. However, we will find something else in protest if any effort is made to force us to do so. Even if its for the greater good, we are stubborn individuals, and will resist any effort to force us into submission.
Toodles
Toodles D. Clown
Contract:
Sorry but you don't have to sign a piece of paper to have a contract. At least in my country.
I've had very few basics Law courses, but one thing i remember is that you have an unspoken/unwriten contract whenever you buy something with cash.
Maybe someone who has studied Law more extensively can explain better..
A contract does not need to be written. Unless there are special rules or regulations requiring a written contract for a specific kind of transactions, a binding agreement is spontaneous (some states REQUIRE written agreements for residential leases..). For example if I buy a case of Bud at the 7/11, a contract got executed in the form of a purchase. A case of beer was exchanged against money. This is a MUTUAL agreement, because the store agreed to sell me something at the same time I agreed to pay for it.
Now, what happens in a situation like an EULA? It can be viewed as an imposed agreement on the user. However the user ALWAYS has the option to turn the EULA down and bring the software back to the store. It is perfectly legal, as long as you have a way to READ the implied contract BEFORE you get to the point of no return (i.e. you opening the package).
This is not the worse case of an imposed agreement. Read all the warning signs on the walls when you are in public places, or read the back of a concert ticket. All of these represent conditions that you accept to respect and assume by purchasing an event ticket for example. This is OK as long as you were the one who bought the ticket. But what happens if you invite a friend to a ballgame and he gets severly injured on the final homerun? He didn't purchase the ticket, but by using it to enter the stadium he implicitly agreed to the terms and conditions imposed by the event organizers. And that's how it works.
I hope that with this in mind you can see that an EULA really is not on the border of legality. It is perfectly sustainable and defendable. There's no way around it.
At the start of his essay he states : "The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." -- William Hazlitt
We're 6 billion people on the planet, if I cared about others more than I care about myself, I'll probably be dead by now. The only people I care about is me, my family and my friends. That's it.
I've long considered that his notion of what "free" means is a little beyond the mainstream, but this clearly spells out that what he has in mind is something insidious. He's clearly trying to redefine what freedom means in an attempt to promote a radical, downright socialist agenda.
The claim that individual software authors don't have the freedom to choose what software license they release under is absurd. Trying to claim that to excercise the right to decide how one's labor is exploited as "power" is absurd. That's called freedom. Users don't have the right to decide how the fruits of a programmers labor are to be used. They do have the right to choose not to use the software in question.
I've long questioned the idea that the GPL promotes some kind of freedom. It clearly is an attempt to plant some kind of social virus which compels the actions of others. But as radical as that is, RMS clearly wishes he could go further and restrict the rights of others to sell the fruits of their labors in a fair and equal market system. I question whether those really interested in creating meaningful software really which to put that yoke on their shoulders and tow the plow of Stallman's vision.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
This is probably posted too late to get much notice, but I think the point made by Stallman is not quite right. Choosing a license may be exercising power, but by advocating that no one choose any license but his own, he is putting you under his power (the optional "any later version" clause in the GPL that is the source of such conflict).
I think it sounds a bit ridiculous for him to say "I believe in the freedom to do anything you want with your software, except choose any license but my own".
Depending on how you define power, every design decision you make - from language to compilers to licenses - is exercising some form of power. You can explicitly exclude some users (using nonstandard GNU compiler extensions) or write code that can be used anywhere.
Stallman is NOT the god he believes himself to be. He seems to be more like a homeless man that knows how to code. Far too many people listen to his rantings.
What's this software freedom about?
I've found it very difficult to explain it to those who don't care about it. It's just like trying to explain the importance of western freedom to a stalinist, a chinese, or a religious fanatic. They simply say, "What do I need that freedom for?" Why would a monogamist need freedom for free sex or a muslism for free beer?
I guess the main problem is that we who appreciate this freedom live in such a different world. We appreciate it because we have experienced it and we don't want to give it away, ever again.
10 years ago, I had a computer. All of my software was pirated, because I nor my family wasn't exactly filthy rich, so I never could have afforded to buy all the software I needed. I loved programming, but the costs of even cheapest development tools would have been prohibitive.
But even with enough money, there would still have been inpenetrable barriers of the proprietary software which I could never change or use in any way, except the restricted ways the producers allow me. I was living, from morning to the evening, in a totaliarian world with high walls everywhere.
5 years ago, I became a Linux user. All the barriers crumbled down, and I could at last breathe freely and freely look at everything in the world in which I live. My world had changed.
Well, my world has its problems. If I want to buy a computer, Linux may or may not have drivers for its hardware. Not all web pages work any more, because Internet Explorer has become a standard. "The other world" is a threat to my dream world, to my freedom. Then someone thinks I'm a fanatic just because I want to protect my free world from Microsoft, which is a totalitarian regime par taleban or the chinese gov. To them, my free world is The Enemy, because if I live in my world, I don't make them profit, and *gasp* might even seduce other paying customers to my world. They want to take my freedom away.
But this is me, a programmer, who really *needs* the freedom. Why would anybody else care about this free world?
Free software isn't just Liber Software, but also gratis beer software. It changes the entire idea that you have to pay for the air you breathe. It decriminalizes all the kids who have a computer and want to explore the world of computing (like playing games).
But no, I don't believe I could ever explain the splendidness of my world of Free Software or other freedoms to a taleban or a chinese communist or a religious fundamentalist or any other authoritarian person. Such as a Microsoft shareholder.
Even with my background, it took me a long time to understand the freedom RMS is talking about. He is talking about software freedom, where you can change and distribute any software without being jailed as a thief, not your freedom to take the freedom of others away with (proprietary) licenses.
Of course RMS is a libertarian in other many senses too. It might be that he sometimes unnecessarily mixes different concepts of liberties, I don't know. But he's perhaps the most influential person for creating the world I live in today, so I'll gladly give him my respect for that.