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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

...it raises the question.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Fixing that idiom error is a rough toad to hoe. Most people just ankle the line because they're so well heeled.

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".

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

[Microlith]

Obviously, that's the only reason people use PCs and not consoles. On PCs everyone just pirates everything, no one ever pirates anything. That's why there's nothing happening at all on PCs and everything happens on consoles.

Re:That's because

[schnell]

how about because there is no DMCA or other such legal bullshit preventing them from doing what they want with HARDWARE THEY OWN??

Since when has "ownership" ever equated to "I can do anything I want with it?"

• 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?
• 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?
• 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?

In no modern society has "ownership" ever had anything to do with "has no restrictions on the usage of." If you want to debate whether users have adequate freedom to do what they want with their electronics, that is absolutely an arguable topic! But please don't say it has anything to do with "ownership."

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

[ihtoit]

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.

House: It's up to you if you want to buy property in a gated community, you take the consequences of your choice even if it means you don't actually get to paint the outside shocking pink. There are districts where this would be allowed. I can name one right now: Fernandina Beach, Florida. Another: Daytona Beach, Florida. Another: Jacksonville, Florida. Another: Eastbourne, East Sussex. There's a whole street full of properties in a rather fetching pastel pink in Brighton, East Sussex. Funnily enough, there's a row of houses in the same pink that looks absolutely horrible in Clifton, Nottinghamshire. I guess it's the difference between Edwardian frontages and 40's-50's urban semi.

Book: You're hitting this thing with a fork: there is nothing to prevent you, either technically or legally, from xeroxing the entire book. You would fall foul of copyright if you then gave away or sold those copies. The original purchased copy is otherwise yours to do with as you please - you can read or you can use it to wipe your arse.

In England, the maxim of "First Sale" applies to all things, in which any item - whether practical, decorative, or literary in nature - has fixed intrinsic value to the buyer whose ownership of that finite object ends the SECOND he sells it or otherwise disposes of it, and its new owner is the recipient - the buyer or the trash collector. Particularly concerning non-fiction, technical or similar books, the First Sale Doctrine grants the limited right of distribution to any person who buys a book to that one copy. There is ample precedent on this.

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-...

Re:That's because

[AmiMoJo]

Actually one of the main reasons people in east Asia jailbroke their iDevices was to install alternate keyboards or change the baseband firmware. The Apple Chinese keyboard was pretty awful for a long time, and until recently couldn't be changed without jailbreaking. The baseband firmware controls the phone's radios and because people were having to import phones from overseas or simply wanted to work around bugs in updates they sometimes changed it.

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.

You are more Free than they let on

[SuperKendall]

Out of the box, the devices are not "Free" in the sense you can modify them directly.

But you ARE legally able to Free any device. Jailbreaking was explicitly declared legal to do, and indeed plenty of people do so.

As long as you are legally able to Free a device, I think we are OK - I don't see the need to force a device to be inherently insecure for millions so thousands of people can expend no effort to modify how a device works.

I still donate to the FSF (and begrudgingly the EFF) every year because I think it's good someone is keeping an eye on all this and striving to make things that are wholly Free. But I just don't see where it's realistic or even a good idea to hold every product to that standard.

Re:You are more Free than they let on

[phantomfive]

Why begrudgingly to the EFF?

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.

The FSF has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

While many of the FSF goals are laudable, the real world has intervened.

There are people out there who just want to cause trouble, mischief, or otherwise harm others and the easiest way for the masses to protect themselves from this threat is to use a walled garden like Apple has built. The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.

Furthermore, the FSF shot themselves in the feet with the reactionary GPLv3 and their refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).

If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.

If FSF had left things alone and stayed with the GPLv2, then corporations wouldn't have run away from any GPLv3 software, with the developer community following.

IF the FSF was truly concerned about the hardware issue, then they should have gone into the hardware business instead of trying to control it via the GPL. The only way to ensure open hardware is to make it yourself, because as the GPLv3 has demonstrated when you try to control with a software license then the hardware companies suddenly find the money to invest in alternative software instead of going the easy route of using your GPL'd software.

But then again this is the type of behavior that brought you the attempt to take over the Linux kernel by renaming GNU/Linux when they were incapable of writing their own kernel.

Re:The FSF has failed

[bug1]

The masses have spoken, and after weighing the costs of the walled garden (censorship etc) vs the benefits (no viruses), the masses have opted for safety with the added benefit of stores with trained staff to help them with any troubles they do run into.

People want independently QA'ed software, which is one of the roles Linux distributions provide.

If Apple could have continued using gcc, then it is likely LLVM/clang would never have had the success that it has.

LLVM/Clang is not a failure for the FSF, its a success for Apple.

There needs to be a copyleft licence that restricts distribution on the same medium as non-free software, without it we will lose the IoT as well.

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:The FSF has failed

[UnknownSoldier]

> [FSF] refusal to allow gcc be useful for third party applications (open source or otherwise).

[Citation] ?

Re:The FSF has failed

[phantomfive]

The FSF has failed

Have you used Linux? Did you submit your comment to a server running Linux? That's because the FSF didn't fail.

Re:The FSF has failed

[exomondo]

I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree. Many developers want this in order to be able to do auto-complete, refactoring and other IDE options within programs like EMACS but Stallman is concerned that this could lead to that abstract source tree (AST) being used as input to proprietary compiler backends, which he sees as bad.

This is another page in the book of hamstringing GCC and EMACS users in the name of freedom, or rather of trying to prevent a perceived threat from closed-source programs. We have already seen the long debates about plugins for GCC which ultimately ended with it being doable so long as it exports the symbol plugin_is_GPL_compatible and as David Engster already said, a GPL plugin for GCC could already be written to extract the AST if that's what compiler backend authors wanted to do.

Re:The FSF has failed

[Marginal Coward]

I'm guessing what he is referring to is the ongoing debate developers are having with Stallman over accessibility to GCC's abstract syntax tree.

I wonder what the young Richard Stallman who was first alienated by closed-source software at MIT would think of the old Richard Stallman's stance on this? It seems to me that the young idealist would have thought that if a little freedom to use and modify software in any way is good, more freedom would be better.

I honestly haven't been able to reconcile Stallman's stances on various recent issues with his stated philosophy. To me, a lot of what he's stated recently such as the LLVM thing and his insistence on specific terminology like "the GNU/Linux system" seem more like an expression of curmudgeonism and "not invented here" than any sort of quest for freedom. Or, maybe he just likes the attention now that he's no longer writing much code, and now that his newest license has been rejected by so many of his own admirers.

(Moderators please note: I'm not trolling, just stating my honest opinions. YMMV.)

Re:The FSF has failed

[meta-monkey]

I'm pretty sure that has been tried (by others) and did not hold up in court.

If he could, believe me, Stallman would.

You called Stallman a hypocrite, and love him or hate him...I can't think of anyone on the planet who is less deserving of that title. He is blindingly, crippling consistent.

Failure

[bug1]

We where onto a good thing, but we failed to adapt.

We failed to adapt to the commercial attacks that make closed source software the gatekeeper to software freedom.

We lost the mobile space, Android is full of crap software running on a Free kernel that hardly anyone can use freely.

Free software is free beer that corporations on-sell minus the libre.

When you don't know what you are doing

[SuperKendall]

care to give an example of where it's not a good idea to jailbreak something you OWN to get full use out of it?

Someone who jailbreaks a phone and then catches a load of malware would be one example.

A better one would be doing something like altering an ECU in a car and then changing parameters without understanding what you are doing, and blowing an engine...

Don't make me break out the Uncle Ben quote man.

high horses

[Lawrence_Bird]

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.

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc all give me the freedom to share my life with others if I so desire.

Re:high horses

[u38cg]

Yes, try exercising the freedom to share your tits on Facebook or Instagram and see how far you get.

A lot better than before

[sayfawa]

The situation isn't ideal, but it's much better than it was before. I have a gaming computer that runs Windows. The rest of my computers (including at my traditonal 9-5 desk job) is Linux. That's undeniable progress.

Strongly copylefted free software + enforcement

[jbn-o]

See Brad Kuhn's talk about the future of copyleft (mirror) for the cure to non-copylefted free software—to keep software freedom in derivative works, license with strongly copylefted free software licenses (the AGPL version 3 or later being the best choice now) and then enforce the license.

Re:Diverse double-compiling

[tepples]

"bootstrapping" a compiler (compiling it with another compiler and then recompiling it with the resulting compiler)

Why should different compilers produce bit-identical machinecode from a C-source as big and complex as a compiler itself? Different code generators can make different choices, resulting in different code.

You're bootstrapping the same compiler on all three base compilers, which means the second stage is run on functionally identical compilers. The output of functionally identical compilers on the same input is thus bit-identical. So the first stage is not bit-identical, but the second is. To make it clearer, I shall spell out all steps:

1. Start with independently developed C compilers FooCC, BarCC, and BazCC.
2. Compile GCC with FooCC, producing GCC/FooCC.
3. Compile GCC with BarCC, producing GCC/BarCC. It won't be bit-identical to GCC/FooCC, but because it is GCC, it should produce the same machine code as any other GCC.
4. Compile GCC with BazCC, producing GCC/BazCC. It won't be bit-identical to GCC/FooCC or to GCC/BarCC, but because it is GCC, it should produce the same machine code as any other GCC.
5. Compile GCC with each of the three binary versions of GCC that you just built. Because they are all GCC, they should all produce the same machine code.

If something is still unclear to you, David A. Wheeler's article explains in even more detail.