Slashdot Mirror
Free Software, Free Society
What's between the covers Free Software, Free Society is divided into four sections:
- One: The GNU Project and Free Software (10 chapters)
- Two: Copyright, Copyleft, and Patents (6 chapters)
- Three: Freedom, Society and Software (5 chapters)
- Four: The Licenses
The book starts off on a good note. Key to understanding nearly everything in the book is a basic understanding of what source code is. Since Stallman's usual audiences don't need to have this explained, Richard E. Buckman and book editor Joshua Gay provide a three-page introduction ("A Note on Software") which is as good and concise an explanation as I've ever seen of the meaning of "source code," "compiler," "assembler," "machine code" and "operating system." Without quibbling over details that space has made them gloss over, this section is a good mental boot camp for anyone reading the book with no programming knowledge at all.
This note is followed by a topic guide which walks a prospective reader through the contents of the book better than a table of contents can, pointing out what concepts are dealt with in the book's chapters, a sort of micro-index. (And in a book this brief, it helps make up for the lack of a more thorough index.)
Lawrence Lessig's introduction largely repeats what Lessig has said in the past about the openness of software. One paragraph in particular sums up one of my favorite analogies when it comes to Free software, and one which I think translates well to those familiar with other fields, like art and architecture:
"... Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by someone else. The lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to the earlier."
Old hat, new hat.
Those familiar with Richard Stallman will no doubt recognize at least some of these essays, or at least their cores, because of the persistence with which Stallman has spread the word of the origins and underlying philosophies of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. The first chapters of the book may bore readers who have heard dozens of times the story of Stallman's experiences with the Incompatible Timesharing System (ITS) in the MIT AI lab, the dissolution of the software-sharing society there, and how it directly led to his quest for a complete Free operating system. Stallman is an engaging writer, though, and I found myself enjoying it even though I have heard the story several times before.
The chapter in this section most likely to trouble those set in conventional thinking when it comes to software is Chapter 4, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners."
Despite the title, the book does not consist entirely of essays; it also includes a transcript of Stallman's speech at NYU in May of 2001, which shows how consistent Stallman's speaking is with his writing style. Some people have derided Stallman (and the FSF) as too academic, removed from the realities of normal computer users and the business world which right now implicitly favors non-Free software, so it's interesting to note the context of that speech -- it was a direct, welcome reaction to the prodding of Microsoft Vice President Craig Mundie's speech on the same campus earlier the same month, in which Mundie casually referred to the "viral aspect" of the GPL, and declared that Free software "puts at risk the continued vitality of the independent software sector."
There's also Stallman's short story "The Right to Read" and even (Chapter 10) the text and score of the Free Software Song. 'The Right to Read" may be the part of the book most appropriate for reprinting in tract form to leave around public libraries: this is a story, not quite hypothetical enough, about a future where every time a book is read, it must be unlocked with a password and authorized by those who hold the strings of copyright -- and sharing books is prohibited. Replace "books" with "e-books" and the story becomes less an allegory as a description of current reality.
Just as current are Chapters 12 ("Misinterpreting Copyright -- A Series of Errors") and 16 ("The Danger of Software Patents"). Stallman's arguments here, despite his protests that practicality is secondary to ethical interests, are eminently practical and should be read by everyone whose work touches either copyright or patents. And contrary to disparagement sometimes heaped on the Free software movement, he does not dismiss either of these in toto -- he simply points out forcefully ways in which these protections can be dangerously perverted.
Some of Free Software, Free Society's contents may strike readers (whatever their level of interest) as needlessly pedantic. I'm thinking here specifically of Chapter 21, "Words to Avoid," which lists 14 words and phrases Stallman discourages in the context of Free software as he defines it. On second glance, I think even this chapter is well suited to the book, since the reasoning presented for his objections to each word on this list (a paragraph or two apiece) will be most informative to people not already steeped in the lore and leanings of the Free Software movement. Some of these (I'll tease by saying that the entry for "content" is my favorite) squeeze in some humor as well.
Stallman's philosophy is what drives his attachment to Free software, but this book is not just a collection of harangues -- there's a great deal of practical advice as well.
Chapter 8, "Selling Free Software" is an essay found in earlier form on the GNU website, which in a few hundred words obliterates a persistent myth about Free software -- that it can't be sold or can't make its sellers a profit. Stallman emphasizes the differences that the GPL has on distribution terms, but lays out the terms clearly:
"Except for one special situation*, The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy."
Helpfully, that older chapter is preceded by one written earlier this year, "Releasing Free Software if You Work at a University." This is a particularly short chapter -- it takes up only two pages -- but the brevity is to Stallman's credit. I would like to see many more case studies beyond the single example presented (a GNU Ada compiler developed at NYU with Air Force funding, with a contract that specified its source code would be donated to the FSF) but these would probably be better in a book with a narrower scope. By not dwelling on unneeded specifics, Stallman has saved space to explain arguments and tactics which may be useful in persuading your school to endorse a Free software license. I also learned in this chapter that "The University of Texas has a policy that, by default, all software developed there is released as free software under the GNU General Public License." (Can anyone tell me more schools where this is true?)
The practical upshot of a philosophical book. Free Software, Free Society is not a book for casual reading, and has no thrills, cliffhangers or suspense -- unless you apply the thoughts within to current, real situations, in which case you can probably find more excitement than you might care for. When Stallman wrote "The Right to Read," no one had yet been arrested for making eBooks accessible or copyable. This book is intentionally didactic and persuasive.
Your library (local or school) should carry a copy of this book because it is distillation of ideas that are philosophically important but by no means abstract. And if the libraries available to you don't carry it, I suggest filling out a book request form -- which you may be able to do right from your computer. (Here are two online examples from Yale and New York City's branch libraries.) Likewise for (as appropriate) your school's computer science department, law school and business school. It would also make a nice gift to your Congressional representatives, since many of them seem to have forgotten that preserving a free society supposed to be their highest aim.
This is a book worth buying, reading, and passing on.
* That exception is when source code is not physically included with binaries; the source code must then be available upon request from the binaries' provider.
You can purchase Free Software, Free Society directly from the GNU Press site. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Interestingly enough, O'Reilly had a page devoted to the software that was used, and it sure wasn't open source (PageMaker or FrameMaker, IIRC),
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
That's a dogmatic definition of 'dogma.' The word has the same root as 'doctor' (whose medical meaning is quite recent - the sense of 'professor' is much older) and 'doctrine,' which originally referred to teacher and teaching. So a 'dogma' is generally a received teaching, but that does not at all mean (1) that there is no reason behind the teaching, or (2) that the student is not encouraged to reason about it. The same root is in the Greek word dokein one of whose meanings was 'think.' It also shows up as both 'orthodox' and 'paradox.' Also, 'document.'
Basically, a dogmatist is anyone who professes to have a consistent teaching. While famous examples include Philo of Larissa's elaboration on Plato's Academy 4 and the doctrines of the Councils of the Catholic Church, these do not nearly exhaust the senses of the word. Your definition of dogma as not subject to reason sounds like itself a bit of dogma - something you have been taught, but in this case by someone whose reasoning about it is based on perhaps a judgment about the Catholic Church's instances of dogma, rather than an open study of the history of the term.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
A lot of people get too caught up in his philosophy and overlook the fact that he's a coding god. I liked this article that sheds some light on his coding abilities.
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
Since I haven't read the book, I can't be sure...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
No it doesn't.
.. both of which promise (despite the model being broken today) that the ideas DO become available to the general public for 0$ after the author has been compesated enough for those ideas to continue working on his/her next idea.)
> The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
RMS's essays are available for Free as In Beer, all over the web. Also free as in speech, because you dont have to pay for the book to get access to the ideas and thoughts that went into them.
RMS isn't charging you because the only place to get the ideas in the book is buying the book. He's charging you because you should be free to charge whatever you like for you work; you simply shouldn't be able to sell the product by withholding the ideas in the product unless you purchase.
Today, we have tons of Franchise Pimps: companies that produce exclusive works and dont allow you access to the ideas of those works without buying those works. They hold the ideas hostage behind the distribution layer of those ideas.
RMS isn't doing that; he's charging you because some work went into collecting, compiling and publishing those works.
That is, you're paying for the BOOK, not the IDEA. Just like how software should be; you should be paying for the work, not the exclusivity of the ideas behind that work (because presumably, those ideas should be protected in some limited term by copyright or patents
Free doesn't imply free; you just assume, contrary to the very function of copyright and patent laws, that holding ideas hostage and manipulating your asking price because your ideas are exclusive to your distribution/publication layter, is required to make money. Nothing in history supports this view, although the current mindset in business has yet to take their beer blasses off (pun intended.)
"Old man yells at systemd"
along with this message...
and on the first page of every chapter is this notice...That's fine, in itself. I think it's fine to pay people for work they did. But think about all the contributors to MySQL, who were doing it because it was "free" and "open" software. MySQL AB (the company who really does control MySQL) is going to make an awful lot of money from all that work. They wouldn't be backed by Venture Capital money if they weren't. But all those contributors shall see not a cent!
I don't think you understand. Those developers made the contribution out of the kindness of their hearts. Perhaps they found a bug during the course of developing for their own company, or perhaps they did it on their free time. But the important thing is that they gave of their talents with the expectation that they would receive nothing in return save a bit of personal satisfaction.
MySQL AB places no restrictions on the code, it is completely GPLed and open to everybody. Documentation is freely available from a multitude of sources. Not a single developer is being restricted from having his hard work available to the entire world.
But in addition to the free version, the creators of MySQL have offered a way for companies to purchase a license, and thus avoid several GPL issues. On top of that, they have also made the choice to stick out their shingle and offer support sevices for the product, which will probably make some good money as well.
But the important thing that you completely misunderstood was that they had complete freedom under the GPL to do this. And more importantly, so does everybody else. Hell, you could start your own company if you really feel like it.
Nobody is being taken advantage of, because everyone is given the same oppertunities to profit from the code.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
You can download all of the speeches and essays from www.gnu.org. If you find one missing, it's an oversight. Write to me at the FSF (novalis at nospam fsf.org) and it'll be fixed.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
No where. And it doesn't need to be. If the book was licensed like the GPL, then anyone who bought a copy could redistribute the text. But there is a separate libre license specifically designed to deal with documents, and so the GPL doesn't even apply.
And it makes sense that the restrictions put on books should differ from those placed on software. You cannot "compile" a book into an unreadable format and still make use of it, unless you have a correspondingly compiled software utility that descrambles the text.
"Free as in beer" means gratis.
Free Software may cost money, but you can use it however you choose. (At least, the copyright holder won't object.)
"Free as in beer" is usually contrasted with "Free as in speech", but that can be confusing. Especially with the recent changes in our legal system.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
RMS has stated in the past that there are many battles out there more important than software, but that there are also people out there more qualified than he to fight those battles. He chose software because no one else was doing it and he was (and is) capable of doing a very good job at it.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
The GPL license puts restrictions on what you can do.
Must we have this discussion again?
The GPL puts restrictions on adding restrictions. The restriction not to add restrictions is a restriction reducing measure. No wishing for more wishes, no freedom to restrict freedom.
Your oversimplified interpretation of the word "free" is laughable. If there are 1 billion people in the world, the GPL guarantees 1 billion people every freedom related to the software in question save one not only for the original work, but for every possible derivative work. A non-GPL license preserves no rights at all relating to derivative works. The only case in which the users end up with less freedom under the GPL is in a case where a piece of software is BSD/MIT licensed, and no one actually creates a closed derived work- in which case no one wanted to exercise that freedom anyway, and therefore no one would actually have been restricted from doing anything anyway. So among all possible users, the freedom granted by the GPL is provably greater than that granted by your precious MIT license.
My ideal world is one where there is a wide mix of software and sofware licenses in use. Some are free, like MIT. Some promote social goals, like GPL. Some are commercial. And some are facist.
Don't they teach you how to spell in troll-school? You can keep your "facist" licenses.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I think you're missing the point.
Free (as it's referred in FSF rhetoric, or libre) doesn't imply no cost. It only implies that once you have the information, you are free to do with it is as you please. Freedom of information once it's obtained is the key. The publishers of the book have decided that they want monetary compensation for a hard copy of their book, so pay up if you really want one. Once you have a copy, you're free to copy, repeat or whatever the text of that book as you see fit.
Sure, the copying of text from a book to a computer is highly less convenient than downloading a tar ball and distributing it on gnutella, but the freedom is there just the same.
arcane for life
You can check out the source from CVS. Also, most of the essays are already on the GNU philosophy page, and the rest are being put up this week.
We do request that if you download the book rather than buy it, that you make a donation to the Free Software Foundation instead to help offset the cost of producing and formatting the book for publication. Indeed, I am frankly afraid that our meager savannah resources will collapse from the slashdot effect.Sincerely,
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
After reading even the rest of this thread, so far no one has mentioned the FDL license[1].
e DocumentationLicensesm Copying
If you want to know FSF's official view on the licenses one is supposed to use when it comes to Free documentation as opposed to Free software, you may find relevant information here[2] and here[3].
I would personally prefer FSF to distribute the book under the FDL license. However there might be a point in distributing it under their "Verbatim copying only" license[4].
Why? Maybe RMS/FSF is/are protective about what political message they wish to convey to us. If the book would be distributed under FDL, anyone could fork the book, making "pedagogical adjustments/additions". Those adjustments might alter the political message in ways RMS/FSF in some cases wouldn't approve of.
A verbatim copying only license would solve that potential problem. But it would create others. Let's say FSF get lots of feedback in a short time. Maybe they wouldn't respond quick enough. Maybe someone else could fork the book and implement the grammar correction or whatever, faster and better.
But then on the other hand, that forker should assist FSF by offering to help them. Not fork them.
And how about wanting to quote some part of the political message? As long as the quote would be verbatim, that would be ok.
But what if I have a political opinion that is 95% identical to that of the FSF? I would then want to be able to take a chapter from the book, alter it slightly to incorporate my conflicting political conviction, and call it my own. That would not be misquoteing. Perhaps even that would be ok because it is technically not a quote?
The more I think about this, the more ambivalent i am about what license I would wish the book to be distributed under. Perhaps both the FDL and the Verbatim copying only license would give me all the freedom I would possibly need in any imaginary scenario.
Also, I should point out that if it's ok to distribute parts of the book, in online html format under FSF's Verbatim copying only license, then it should be ok to distribute a book containing all the parts, under the same conditions. And the parts of the book are availible online. And the parts are under their Verbatim copying only license.
I also enjoyed reading "Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation"[5].
[1]:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
[2]:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Fre
[3]:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html
[4]:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#Verbati
[5]:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html