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.
After seeing Cringely's Triumph of the Nerds PBS series, in which he pointed out that every person who became wealthy off of hi-tech in the '80s did it by exploiting the innovators, I've had a funny feeling that somebody's going to do the same with "free" software.
My colleagues tell me no, that's not true. But just yesterday we started looking into replacing our commercial database engine with MySQL. Lo and behold, for our commercial use, we have to pay for it.
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 mean to pick on MySQL, but I think it's an interesting example. Open source and "free" software is a disruptive technology, just as something like Shareware was when compared to the Freeware model of the early '90s.
But I think it's naive not to expect to see some people make an awful lot of money out of code that others contributed to free. I fear history will repeat itself.
Regarding the comparison of free code to the law, I think Stallman (and Timothy) might be disappointed to read this at LawMeme. For those who don't want to follow the link:
Apparently, nothing is sacred. :-)
is the book copyrighted? If not, is it under any license agreement? Or can i scan it in, and redistribute it on the internet (in its entirety, with obvious credit that RMS was the author and not me?)
obviously, since the book has physical attributes, i wouldn't believe or suggest that a physical book itself would be free... but i'm curious if he eats his own dog food.
tangental question...
how did it come about that Lessig's eBook was protected to the point of being unusable? Did not he write it? (/Yoda) And did he not have control over how its protections were to be set? I am a devotee of Lessig's ideas (not to the man himself), but this has always bothered and confused me.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Stallman is often criticised as a fanatic ideologist. Do you remember Linus Torvalds saying 'ideology sucks' or 'linux is just for fun' ...
Well, today, linus is working for Palladium
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6487
so, although we don't know precisely ideology is leading us... we can get a picture of what absence of ideology leads to.
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
But, most intelligent minds were not zealotous and unwilling to be practical and professional when arguing. I've seen transcripts of debates of RMS and MS reps. The MS Rep always talked with professionalism, and when RMS was asked a tough question, he'd try to rail on MS and avoid the question altogether.
I -really- wish I had links to some of them (anyone? I think there was a recent debate at MIT that RMS went off the handle).
Basically, RMS's points have been heard, and change takes a long time. RMS isn't willing to wait for a long period of time, and isn't satisfied with how much has happened already, so I picture him as a stubborn zealot that will never truely be happy.
Sorry to sound harsh, or to bash RMS. His ideas are good, but the way he conveys it is not.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
The GPL license puts restrictions on what you can do. They are well-intentioned restrictions, like the license mentioned recently here which didn't let you use the software to harm human rights. Or you could imagine a license that required you to donate money to charity. These are good goals but they are not free software.
Free software should mean software that can be used freely, without restriction. That means something like the MIT license. That is a true "free software" license. The GPL is a restrictive license that advances certain social goals.
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. That way people can decide which licenses and which software they want to use and support. Let a thousand licenses bloom!
That's either a troll or someone who is very ignorant about how Stallman uses the term "free". Here's a hint: he is not opposed to selling things.
I'll make this point again. I can easily go to the GNU project page, look at the definition of Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), and see that freedom to redistribute code is a pre-condition for Free software.
I wonder what would happen if I bought the book, scanned the pages, and started distributing them online... I'm sure it would be interesting, at any rate. My opinion is that if there was a commitment on their part to allow this, it would be available (possibly for fee) in an electronic format. But it's not.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you can consider them 'neighbors' rather than 'competitors' you'll really be getting the point.
Competition generally seems to lead to people breaking each other's kneecaps, also to one person cornering the market and making it unfree. Maybe you consider it overwhelmingly important to have the liberty to be able to carry out such hypercompetitive practices (if you don't they'll be done to you, under capitalism) but they convey no social benefit- they're worse than 'socialism' in the long run, at least the type of 'socialism' the USA has often practiced.
You simply cannot play society as an elitist power game- it doesn't work. Society is about the social- funny how the very words lead you to 'social-ist'! It's like taking care of the environment by limiting the 'freedom' of that chemical plant over there to dump PCBs into the ground-water and kill everyone over a very long term. It is always the case that individuals have options that harm society far more than they benefit the individual. It is those 'freedoms' that have to be denied.
Everybody will have different opinions on which options those are, mind you- but consider murder, robbery, copyright (just kidding! Or am I? ;) ) etc.
but i am expressly talking about property rights. socialism by its very nature is opposed to property rights. remember, if they can tax it, they can take it. if they can take it, you don't own it. property rights are at the heart of a truly free society. (btw, there is a HUGE difference between property and IP). another post though...
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
With any discussion about RMS and his myriad of contributions, it's great to look up a little history in order to keep perspective.
In particular, I recall the era of Emacs vs Lucid Emacs vs Epoch (basically 3 variants of Emacs, some incompatibilities, a lot of confusion, and a bit of a dropped-ball on the part of the FSF).
Wind your way-back machine to 1992, via deja.com: Lucid Emacs threads
You may even see a few familiar names in there, such as a kid named Marc Andreesen...
My example is: RMS has given us Emacs and GCC as two of his best efforts. But, he's also been pretty difficult to work with over the years (aside from meetings and other examples others have posted). I have to wonder how this has affected the development of HURD, which started in 1990.
My perspective is... He's a great coder, and has made lots of valuable, tangible contributions. BUT... He should not be a front-man for the idea of Free Software. It's difficult for a lot of people to get past the poor messenger, and to the message itself (think "business decision makers" for a moment)
Sorry this is unfocused. I am orbiting around the "great contributions, but still makes me cringe" vibe of RMS.