After 30 Years of the Free Software Foundation, Where Do We Stand?

An anonymous reader writes with this interview with John Sullivan, Executive Director of The Free Software Foundation. "There is a growing concern about government surveillance. At the same time, those of us who live and breathe technology do so because it provides us with a service and freedom to share our lives with others. There is a tacit assumption that once we leave the store, the device we have in our pocket, backpack, or desk is ours. We buy a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, and we use applications and apps without even thinking about who really owns the tools and whether we truly own any of it. You purchase a device, yet you are not free to modify it or the software on it in any way. It begs the question of who really owns the device and the software?"

Comments

That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

We buy a computer, a tablet, a smartphone, and we use applications and apps without even thinking about who really owns the tools and whether we truly own any of it.

That's because only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices. I know this is heresy here on Slashdot, but it's true. 99+% of the population simply don't give a shit whether or not they can build their own applications for the device.

Why?

Because 99+% of the population does not have the necessary time, skill, and interest to do so. It's not that people are dumb - it's that they just don't care about replacing the existing software that lets them do all the things they want to do with their devices.

Re:That's because

[Em Adespoton]

And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why? Because they care about replacing the existing software because it doesn't let them do all the things they want?

Re:That's because

[TWX]

Even for those of us that do have an inclination for digging into the working parts of our devices, times come where we just want the darned thing to work.

I've been using Linux since the 2.0.0 kernel debuted in 1996. I have not rooted my phone, because unlike the Linux boxes that I've set up as my workstations, I need my phone to work 100% of the time. If I break my computer it's not a big deal, I have both other hobbies that don't use computers, and I have other computers themselves. By contrast I have one phone, and based on both the costs for subscribing multiple handsets and the cost of those handsets themselves (and their penchant for only being replaced when they're actually physically broken in my case) I do not have a spare phone to revert to should I break the current one.

I'm a geek that figures out how just about everything works, but I don't necessarily feel a need to take everything apart simply because I know how it works.

Re:That's because

[farble1670]

And yet, the majority of iPhones in Asia are jailbroken. Why?

so they can installed pirated apps.

Re:That's because

[farble1670]

let's not get all high and mighty about freedom and privacy. it's about installing pirated software. call a spade a spade, that's all i'm saying.

Re:That's because

[Trogre]

That might have been true a couple of years ago, but now that it's common knowledge that your device is probably spying on you, people are suddenly interested in how to make their devices NOT spy on them.

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a car but I am not legally free to disable the seatbelt or airbags. Does that mean I don't own my car?

You are free to do that. Just don't drive on the public roads you don't own or expect your insurance to pay out.

I have a house. I signed a contract when I purchased it saying I would abide by the rules of a "Home Owner's Association" which regulates what colors I can paint it, and how I can decorate it. Does that mean I don't own my house?

Yes, it does. That's why many people avoid them. Or why in some historic districts, get tax writeoffs for selling that ownership so to speak.

I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?

That is exactly what copyrights are about, saying who does own the intellectual property of the book. You merely own an object, unless you purchase ownership of the contents. Or until it hits the public domain.

Re:That's because

[Grishnakh]

I have a book but am not legally allowed to xerox all the pages of it and sell or give those copies away to other people. Does that mean that I don't own the book?

There is nothing stopping you from xeroxing all the pages of your book and giving away those copies. You might get sued (not likely) by the publisher or other copyright owner after the fact, but there is no technological measure preventing you from doing so. Your photocopy machine will happily copy these pages for you.

This is quite different from a non-jailbroken phone which doesn't allow you to install any app you want.

It's one thing for there to be a law saying you can't do something, and if you do you can be sued by the person you're harming, and quite another thing for a device you own to prevent you from doing what you want with it.

As for seatbelts or airbags, it depends on the exact make and model, but newer cars may throw up some roadblocks if you disable airbags. However, this is really apples and oranges: copyright violation is not a matter of public safety, and isn't even a crime (or shouldn't be, I guess the stupid DMCA makes it one, it's supposed to be a tort only). Anything to do with automobiles is a matter of public safety and therefore deserves a lot of regulation.

Re:That's because

[tlhIngan]

However, the answer is likely that it was an easy way to unlock phones sold in the N. American market. Every time Apple releases a new phone, a bunch are bought up on the west coast by people who jailbreak them, unlock them, and then sell them in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China. This likely accounts for both the large number of jailbroken devices and for the decline, as a larger and larger number of legit devices are sold directly into the Chinese market.

Don't confuse North America with the US.

iPhones sold by Apple in Canada without a contract come SIM unlocked by default. If I wanted to wait, I could've had an unlocked iPhone 6 (or 6+) on launch day.

And other places often sell unlocked iPhones.

Plus, on launch day, there are NO jailbreaks for new devices. So unlocking them is basically impossible via the jailbreak route.

And the incidence of jailbreaking in Asia is going down, as it turns out by jailbreaking, you're getting your phone infected with all sorts of spyware. There already are a bunch of iOS spyware that infects jailbroken devices only because they require circumventing the iOS security system in order to function. They can't infect a non-jailbroken phone.

So the only reason for jailbreaking in Asia is to engage in what they consider their basic right - to pirate. I mean, the latest installs of the jailbreaking tools for the past few iOS revisions install some Chinese pirated app store.

Of course, elsewhere on the Internet, the other way to do pirated app installs is to use a re-signer service that uses the enterprise certificate to sign cracked apps so they install on unjailbroken phone. It probably explains why the iOS section of most sites is gathering dust, while the Android section is healthy and growing with dozens of new pirated apps posted daily.

Re:That's because

[Richard_at_work]

ooh, car analogy. OK, we'll start with that:

In England, there is no law REQUIRING you to WEAR a seatbelt. There is a law REQUIRING front dual airbags, and belts to be fitted on all seats and that all safety devices are BSI certified. That is where the analogy ends. Fucking with vehicle safety devices falls under "criminal negligence" and can get you sent to jail. Fucking with your phone's firmware isn't likely to kill anyone.

Are you referring to England UK? Then you are wrong - the Transport Bill was amended in 1981 to require all drivers and passengers in the front of a vehicle fitted with seatbelts to wear them. This became a permanent legal requirement in 1986, extended to rear seat belts for children in 1989 and then further extended to all rear passengers in 1991.

Currently there is a £500 fine if you are caught in a moving vehicle without your seatbelt. It is illegal to remove seatbelts from a vehicle that was sold with them installed. The driver is responsible for all passengers wearing their seatbelt unless they are over the age of 14, and then the passenger becomes liable for any fines.

https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-...

3rd AC comment is golden

[rmdingler]

We talk about the backdoor installations the government's pet TLAs request in exported electronics.

We assume the information gatherers track us at every chance, often with our tacit permission.

No longer bordering on tinhattery, there exists the very real possibility everything you purchase in the electronics section might report your doings for fun and profit. If you can break the phone, why wouldn't you?

"Ownership" isn't about hacking your device

[ciaran2014]

> only a vanishingly small percentage of the population really cares about hacking on their devices.

I don't hack the software on my laptop, but it's all free software and I know it's written by people who aren't trying to spy on me or to give me inconveniences so that I'll buy some premium version.

If you have Window, then MS has owned your PC.

If you have free software, then you "own" it.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[kogut]

I think this particular logical fallacy needs a new name. The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.

Re:It doesn't 'beg' the question...

[ShanghaiBill]

The phrase is non-intuitive and confusing to me. While the common incorrect usage is quite intuitive.

The solution is to never use the phrase in your own writing or speaking. If you use it correctly, most people will be confused. If you use it incorrectly (as most people do) you will look uneducated, and may be attacked by pedants. So just avoid it entirely. Instead, use either "raises the question", "circular argument", or "assuming the conclusion".

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

Permissive open source licenses allow people to choose who they collaborate with and how much

Permissive open source licences allow freeloaders to choose if they should their modifications with the non-freeloaders who have already chosen to share with them.

Which is why the BSDs have had only limited success compared to GNU/Linux.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[caseih]

Not having root access to my device is not legitimate? Are you serious? How can you think that is appropriate? Perhaps you are an app developer who's been burned. If so, I'm sorry. But two wrongs don't make a right. You're right to make money on your own proprietary app is legitimate. But so is my right to have full control of my own devices. If those come into conflict (I don't think they do), then it can be resolved with existing laws. To justify removing users's freedoms to preserve your income stream is a bit shaky. That is if you are a disgruntled app developer.

In any case, what if I want to develop my own homebrew apps using whatever tools I want or come up with, other than Xcode? Or access the raw hardware sensors directly and do cool things outside the Apple-defined garden? Or the ability for others to do this and for me to be able to run their cool stuff on my phone, tablet, or other device. Or the ability to replace the system software completely?

Right now in the RC toy world companies from China are shaking up the transmitter market by introducing low-cost transmitters that are completely open and hackable. Homebrew firmwares are very popular and do amazing things that the incumbent companies only offer on their most expensive radios. It's a beautiful mix of open hardware and open software. Niche market sure but it illustrates what can happen.

And Android does have some of this going for it, but most phones are, like Apple's phones, rather locked down and must be cracked open, sadly. Though google never tried to make that very difficult thank goodness. Still annoying, but less so than on iPhone, especially with sanctioned, boot-unlockable phones out there, such as the Nexus 5.

In the end it just comes down to personal freedom with my devices. On Android, thanks to root access, I have a number of utilities I use on a regular basis such as an ssh daemon that can give me full access to the file system (good for tweaking obscure settings, performing legitimate backups, etc). Titanium Backup is the killer app for rooted Android phones I think, though I confess Google made it less necessary for most users by syncing apps and data to the cloud (privacy!).

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Because they are prone to wild goose chases that are a horrific waste of funds.

They still do some good work though and since there's no-one else doing quite what they do, I keep donating and holding my nose.