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.
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."
And forcing me to choose a license that meets the FSF's approval is an attempt to assert what?
Could it be...?
Power?
I'm impressed. That single-sentence excerpt, by itself, says more about its author than Mao's entire Little Red Book did.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Who appointed Stallman God? In his own way he is just as bad as Bill Gates, for they are both trying to dictate the terms under which we can distribute the software we write, or use the software we use that has been written by others.
I reject both of them for trying to control what I do with the code I write. When I write something, _I_ should have control under the provisions it is licensed under.
When I use software from others I have to make a choice about what license provisions I will agree to. These days I have a lot of choices. I like it that way.
I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions in this regard - and I cannot stomach the idea of others trying to make them for me.
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
GNU wants to give you freedom.
Nobody has the freedom to do things that are harmful to others. Nobody complains about not having the "freedom" to kill people, because that's not a freedom people have.
Similarly, GNU grants you every freedom except one - you can't take freedom away from other people by relicensing the software with restrictive conditions that don't give the people the same freedom you had.
To take freedom away from people, (i.e. not giving them the freedom that you had) is not a freedom - it's an issue of power. Just as taking someone's life or property away from them is not a freedom, taking someone's freedom away from them is also not a freedom with respect to software.
So it's not that GNU is "denying" you the freedom to license as you see fit, they just want to deny you the ability to take freedom away from other people, which itself isn't a freedom.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Almost everyone of the "RMS should mind his own business" posts here ignores the key argument that he makes. That freedom cannot be limited only to the producer, but also must be extended to the consumer (the code user here). This cannot simply be a bad choice one vs bad choice two, but needs to extend to some of the realities of the world. While it may be simple to say, "well, I have the freedom to make my own software" (which for obvious reasons isn't true for the vast majority of people) is false becase of the power pattents grant.
They are arbitrary, not some divine (or as Rand would say, nature) given right. Say we live in a world where the software producer has total "freedom" to do what he or she would like. O'Riley and ERS would say that no one should have the "power" to take their right to this property away from them. What if the software or hardware pioneers had placed a pattent on a logic gate, or the word proccessor, or the browser, or any number of other broad areas like this. Think of how it would impact the rest of society, this untaped knowledge and technology that is now held from the public behind the iron bars of pattent and property. Sure, in theory I have the ability to say, I don't want to use product ABC with license requirements XYZ, but in pratice no such ability exists, as I must also sustain myself physically (food shelter, etc come to mind).
The reality is that our actions inharently effect others, and the (IMHO) simple way of looking at property, code in this case, as comming with a absolute freedom/power to decide how others use it not only makes little sense philosophically, but also pratically.
(sorry for the typos by the way)
RMS,
/. community agree with you, people/corporations ought to open up certain projects, as open source is good for the customer - but the notion that somehow software developers are somehow morally obligated to GPL their work is completely nuts.
:)
Please review Locke. People have property rights. If I put my efforts into thing X I have property rights to thing X and thus it is morally permissible for me, not you to decide how to distribute X, if at all.
I, and many others here in the
The ideals behind socialisms, either those of government or those of software, do not work. Without the ability to distribute property (of which software is a type) as one sees fit, one loses much economic incentive to develop in the first place.
Please RMS, check your ego just a little bit and town down the sensationalism, its starting to get rather tired.
Besides, some of my code is far to ugly to ever be open-sourced
Cordially,
Andrew Murray University of Washington
If you think at all like me, then your answers are yes, yes, no. I think that if you buy a toy, then you should be able to take it apart and see what else you can make it do. If you buy Windows, you should be able to sell it to someone else after you are done using it. Quoting a paragraph from a book should be fair use.
And yet the Tivo usage agreement says something about no reverse engineering or disassembling. Microsoft does not let you sell copies of Windows, even if you no longer use it. The third example is a right of consumers that is respected by volumes of law. How are they all similar? In every case the author releases their work under a restrictive license. In all three cases I think the restriction should not be legally binding. This means that I think that creators should not be allowed to release their work under any license they choose. I think there are restrictions that should not be enforced, and license "agreements" that I believe do not mean anything. This is what RMS is saying.
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.
This argument by RMS is essentially about power -- HIS power. Bill Gates wants to force you to give him money in exchange for software. RMS wants to force you to give him the source code with any software you write.
Both arguments are essentially about the person doing the arguing, not the person on the other end of the transaction.
The right to choose the license under which you will release the work you do is probably the most fundamental freedom of all. Being forced to give away source code, whether you like it or not, is essentially forced bondage.
The GPL as written is an amazing document, one that does an excellent job of balancing freedoms for all parties involved in software distribution. But it doesn't suit all purposes or all situations. Trying to force it into all transactions is an abrogation of freedoms, not an extension.
Would this be a free license? Besides the obvious point that the license would become completely free at some point in the future, there's the practical matter that it will not affect RMS's ability to use my code in any way - the alternative to the RMS-free license is that I don't let anyone see the code (or not without explicit compensation in terms of salary or licensing fees). The only people affected are the 6,127,317,984 people who are neither RMS nor I.
What's the alternative? Is anyone seriously suggesting that I must publish all code I write? If so, why are programmers different from, oh, lawyers? (They must represent anyone who demands their services, without compensation.) Or doctors and dentists? Or taxi drivers. Or anyone else in the service sector?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
A software license is simply a contract. If the contract says, "in exchange for the use of this software, I agree not to give copies of it away" or whatever, that's not fundamentally different from a contract that says, "in exchange for the use of this software and source code, I agree to publish any changes I make to it".
In no case are you coerced into agreeing to a software license (and if you were, then the crime against freedom would be the coercion, not the license). If RMS says he's opposed to the freedom to choose a "restrictive" license (as if the GPL weren't restrictive...), then what he means to say is that he's opposed to unlimited freedom of contract.
I won't even expound on my personal feelings on the matter, I just think RMS should say what he means.
It seems to me that the big argument here is about ownership and property rights, which everyone has strong opinions about, pro and con. However, maybe there is another approach that will make some sense to everyone. Maybe we should think of developers as guardians of their code instead of owners.
The analogy is that of a parent to a child. I don't own my child; she is free to live her own life. But I do have power over her. I gave birth to her and I have the responsibility to raise her until she is old enough to live on her own. As long as I am her guardian, I have the right, in fact the obligation, to make choices that affect her life. I decide what kind of education to give her, what morals to teach her, etc. And it's my right and obligation to protect her in her interactions with others. I set these limits because I want her to become a good, productive,giving member of society.
My code can be like my child (how many developers think of their code as their "baby"?) I created it and I put effort into improving it. I want it to become useful to others. Might I then also have the right to be its guardian and maintain custody of it when I release it into the world? Do I have the freedom to choose how I want others to use it? What do you think?
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
Fascinating. I was unaware of any society where people were granted total freedom to decide how the fruits of their labour are used.
For an example, I suggest the razor blade. Many people (mostly men) use this device to remove facial hair, and many other people (mostly women) use it to remove leg hair. Some other people use it to remove hair in ... other places.
Do you see the razor companies trying to tell you where to put your razor?
Huh.
And that's not even getting into the fact that the razors are actually being made by people (well, ok, by machines controlled by people); these people, somehow, do not seem to mind the idea that porn stars might use the fruits of their labour in an unusual way.
This is capitalism, folks. You just don't get to decide what other people do with the things you make, once you've sold those things to them.
It's the copyright control freaks who want to setup a non-capitalist state, IMO; if you look back in time, to a time when there were large organizations which held state-sponsored monopolies over certain industries, we called that system of economics feudalism.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Your simple post is attractive for its conciseness, but you conflate the power to take away freedoms and the power to protect freedom. They are different.
The distinction is actually rather obvious. You have the freedom to do anything you like except take away freedoms. You are being too simplistic with your notion of "power"- It's not that all power is bad, but rather that power when used to take away important freedoms is bad.
The GPL takes away no more freedom than is necessary to preserve freedom, and in a world where no one is able to take away your freedom to use information (i.e., a world without copyright), the GPL becomes unenforcable, you're right- but also unnecessary. I can only guess that those shouting loudest about how the GPL takes away freedoms must be paid by microsoft, because the only freedom it takes away is your right to keep someone else from having the same freedoms you have, and the only beneficiaries of such a system would be those who want to take the work of the community and make it exclusively their own.
Your "right to defend my home" example presumes you have an exclusive right to the object you are protecting. Intellectual property doesn't work this way though- the government grants you a temporary monopoly, it is not yours by right but rather because the framers of the constitution thought it would be a good bargain that would maximize social benefit. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Your "censorship" example raises a good point. Everyone has the right to say that certain things ought not be said, but no one has the right to *keep people from saying those things*. Where is the freedom to censor? It is incompatible with free speech, and free speech is a fundamental right, so it trumps the "freedom to censor". Similarly, the freedom to take away other people's right to use software is incompatible with the freedom to use and modify software for any purpose.
No wishing for more wishes. -the djinni
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
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.
I think Kuhn and RMS have a very convoluted view of the nature of individual power.
First of all, picking a copyright licence, GPL or not is precisly "to make decisions that affect others more than you". Under the GPL, the author grants some, but not all of the "exclusive rights" given to him by the Copyright Act. If Kuhn and RMS believe that retaining exclusive rights is an "exercise of power" per their definition of this term, then they should advocate placing software into the public domain. Instead they retain some of the power to exclude and use it to achieve their particular agenda. That agenda is not a bad one, but the idea that it is the only one that is acceptable is ludicrous.
In no sense is the exclusion of others from using your software for their own proprietary interests "being able to make decisions that affect mainly you". Who are they talking to when they say "you"? They drift back and forth between the interests of the users, authors, and other developers so it's hard to tell. Their definition of power focuses on "you" being the decision maker, ie the author, so deciding conditions for the exercise of your exclusive rights your code definitely "affects mainly others", since it will be the basis for the exercise of governmental force against them if they violate it.
The essay really moves to the far far left fringe. I think MS was wrong when they called the GPL "un-American", but with essays like this, they aren't far of the mark. The idea that exercising a "right to exclude" is a "power" (presumed bad) and not a "freedom", is simply contrary to mainstream American values. Isn't property by definition an exclusive right? In fact, all rights involve defining a space of action and giving exclusive moral sanction in that space to somebody and denying it to either the government or others or both.
Current copyright law places us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms.
The first sentence is profoundly wrong. If you don't want to be in a "position of power", simply proclaim the software public domain. Of course, the GPL doesn't do this, which compounds the error with hypocracy.
Next follows the most troubling part of the whole essay: that last quoted sentence is a whopper. The implication that it is unethical to exercise your rights if those involve excluding others is the essence of the communist belief system. The Bill of Rights restricts government from violating individual rights, and most prominent among these is the right to property, which includes proprietary interests in intellectual property as a subset of statutory and contractual assets generally.
In summary, the essay is a convoluted parade of offsetting errors: the GPL violates the very principle the authors imply is "unethical" (retaining exclusive rights = "power") , but the idea that it is unethical to exclude others from your property is a far worse concept.