Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet)
O'ReillyNet has published a lengthy interview with Richard Stallman. "Porting free applications to nonfree operating systems is often useful. This allows users of those operating systems to try out using a few free programs and see that they can be good to use, that free software won't bite them. This can help people overcome worries about trying a free operating system such as GNU/Linux. Many users really do follow this path."
(Log in to post comments)
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 3:07 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] First let me say, I have the utmost respect for RMS and what he has created. However... Proprietary software is unethical, because it denies the user the basic freedom to control her own computer and to cooperate. He must not own a car then; nor for that matter a TV, dishwasher, refrigerator, furnace, nor any other modern appliance with proprietary embedded software. Since I am determined to keep my freedom, I won't use nonfree software. That is demonstrably false. He travels in planes and by cars. Presumably, he buys electricity with which to run his free software from a power station (that is controlled at least in part by non-free software). So if your innovation would be nonfree software, please don't write it. Please do something else, something that won't deny users their freedom. There is a difference between free software and all of the proprietary software that I mentioned above: free software has no warranty. Will the GPL v3 change that? If not, then you can forget about ever having e.g. free (libre) ABS code controlling the brakes in your car. But if the GPL v3 did grant an effective warranty, nobody in their right mind would actually license their code with it - except companies who could count on being paid per user (because that's how you count warranties). Wait a minute, but then the "free as in beer" part becomes a problem. Unless and until RMS has a workable solution for that (in addition to ceasing use of his refrigerator et. al.), I reject his claim that some of the code I write is unethical, and I resent his request that I stop writing it.
GPL and warranties Posted Dec 23, 2004 4:10 UTC (Thu) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] It seems to me that nothing in the GPL prevents anyone from selling a warranty. It wouldn't have to be the author, and the warranty would probably be subscription-based rather than being tied to the purchase of the software itself.
Any entity could evaluate the software, conclude that it really does exactly what it is supposed to do, decide that they are in a position to remedy any problem that is discovered, and therefore could offer up an insurance policy (which is what a warranty is). No problem. In fact, this is *better* than proprietary software, where only the author is in any position to offer any warranty (monopoly). Most authors choose not to do so, leaving customers without any warranty options.
Although I am a very strong believer in software freedom, I continue to struggle with the border cases. Is it really *unethical* for me to develop non-free software to make a living? I use free software almost exclusively, but if the only option is non-free software, am I really obligated not to use it? What about the BIOS and other embedded proprietary software that we use every day--must I stop using the devices until free alternatives become available, even if they may never do so?
I'm probably way farther over on the freedom side than most folks, but apparently not quite as far as rms...yet. I say "yet", because the more I learn and experience, the more important software freedom becomes for me.
GPL and warranties Posted Dec 23, 2004 5:25 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] It seems to me that nothing in the GPL prevents anyone from selling a warranty. It wouldn't have to be the author, and the warranty would probably be subscription-based rather than being tied to the purchase of the software itself. That is correct, but misleading. Much as RMS might prefer otherwise, economics come into play here. If (hypothetically) you hire me to warrant that your free (libre) ABS brake controller functions properly, for a price I can do that. But I couldn't possibly continue to warrant it after you start modifying it. So you have a choice: exercise your freedom to modify and risk the potential liability yourself, or don't modify it and let your insurer carry the risk. You can't have it both ways. And for a lot of embedded software (especially safety critical), I assert that no (sane) individual would be willing to assume that liability. Note that a lot of people here gripe about RedHat Enterprise Linux because they don't get this: RedHat's customers buy those subscriptions with their eyes wide open. They don't want to modify it, they just want to use it. They're willing to trade their freedom to modify for a (perceived?) reduction in risk. Not only is there nothing wrong with that... we all get the benefit of RedHat's paid kernel hackers.
You really don't get it Posted Dec 26, 2004 20:35 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You say you understand but you do not.
You continue to cite the portion of the GPL that disclaims all warranties.
First of all, this is completely normal for a software license, even in the
Second of all, this is how it has to work. The GPL is recursive. People who
Third of all, you are missing an important disctinction. You say that Free
Basically your argument sounds a lot like the Laura Dido FUD. I guess you
Sorry to reply twice, but... Posted Dec 23, 2004 6:09 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] I use free software almost exclusively [...] That statement is almost certainly false, even if your PC is the purest virgin Debian: Traffic lights, cash registers at stores, electronic billboards, wireless phones, telcos, cable cos, your ISP, gas pumps, ATMs, pacemakers, electronic toll booths, the postal service, etc. Don't get me wrong, I value the libre in free software. It's just that RMS' rhetoric, that what I and other embedded guys write is unethical, even while he continues to use such software every day, is truly ridiculous. If you're thinking of giving all that up, good luck out there in the wilderness.
Re: Sorry to reply twice, but... Posted Dec 23, 2004 9:22 UTC (Thu) by adulau (guest, #1131) [Link] The rms' rhetoric is a starting point to go for more free software. I agree with you that the current world contains a lot of proprietary software but on the long-term that will be very dangerous for our society based more and more on software and the related fields.
Regarding warranties, the current concept/approach on the warranty is difficult to combine with software. But that's another story...
Sorry to reply twice, but... Posted Dec 24, 2004 16:53 UTC (Fri) by oconnorcjo (guest, #2605) [Link] I highly doubt RMS thinks he "uses" a trafic light. He just obeys the law. I think RMS is thinking primarily of software on a general purpose computer. The software in a toaster or refrigerator is not meant to be USED- just to facilitate the functionality of hardware. While I am sure RMS has something to say about embedded software, I am sure it is not with the same perspective as "normal software". It is not like if you changed the timing software in your toaster, you have much more freedom and flexibility with your toaster.
Its funny you talk about embedded software because really it is probably one of the areas that can most easily be open sourced since who gives a sh*t about timing and tempature code in a refrigerator or toaster. Ones competitor is not going to get much of any insight.
On the other point about other people using proprietary code. RMS is not going to stop you from using proprietary software (though he might explain why it is bad). If people in the airport use proprietary code to help him get an airplane ticket, does not mean he is using propritary code. He is just DEALING with people who are.
"Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Jan 6, 2005 15:09 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] Your stance seems to hinge on the theory that embedded software is different from general-purpose software and cannot be free because it must be warrantied.
Other people have adequately covered the 'warranties' aspect, so I'll look at the 'embedded is different' part.
I write embedded software for a living too, but mine is free software. That's the modern definition of 'embedded' i.e several megabytes not several K :-), but I don't think it makes any difference to the priniciples involved. Free software has all the same benefits when embedded in a device as it does on general-purpose machines. Most people will chose not to excercise them, but the ability to do so is important and good for society (this is where the 'moral' bit comes in - free software is a public good). And it's good for business as well as individuals - take the ecosystem and businesses building up around wifi and broadband routers where competing software stacks are appearing _because the original hardware contained free software_.
I dearly wish that my GPS had free software in it so I could fix some of it's most egregious failings. Where the choice exists I do buy hardware that contains free software precisely because of the problems I have had in the past with proprietary devices being unfixable. The number of instances where this choice exists is increasing and having most of the world run on free-software based embedded devices is not a ridiculous pipe-dream. We have a long way to go, but there is real change happening already at the high end.
Perhaps you are just annoyed by the term 'unethical', because you believe that free software is technically desireable, but not an ethical issue. Well OK, fair enough - plenty of free-software supporters take a fairly utilitarian stance - but they usually call themselves 'Open Source' supporters. :-)
Nevertheless I don't think your argument that because software is so pervasive it is now impossible to avoid all proprietary software, so anyone claiming it should not be used is a hypocrit, holds much water. Indeed it is this very pervasiveness that makes it more important for all software to be free - it increasingly affects all aspects of our lives and we need there to be fair competition, and the right to get things fixed when they are broken, or modifided for our personal purposes. None of this should be rendered illegal by proprietary rights. You can call that ethics or practicality - ultimately it doesn't matter much, the reasoning and outcomes are much the same.
Perhaps you just need to get a job writing free embedded software then your irritation would evaporate :-)
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 5:40 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] And you are happy that you or anyone else cannot see the source code uponwhich your life depends? A friend bought a small truck manufactured by and american auto company. It was standard transmission, and he would brake with the engine to keep his speed down on the slippery mountain roads around here. The software would seemingly randomly accelerate the vehicle as an emission control strategy. He almost lost control once, took the vehicle back to the dealer and demanded his money back. I've got a small module implanted in my shoulder that has wires into my heart. It keeps me alive and measurably improves my quality of life. It is an amazing device with logging and multiple functions. These are two examples of how software is part of our day to day life. One of the magics of free and open software is the ability to see how it is made. It isn't pretty. It is an intellectual exercise that seems to reflect the failings and limitations we have as humans. Multiple strategies are implemented to attempt to limit the damage of such failings, with some limited success. Do I trust software enough to trust my life to it? Yes to a degree. But when it is hidden for whatever reason, why should I trust it? I know the hassle and difficulty involved. I know that bugs are inevitable, testing will never catch them all. So shouldn't software and the process used to create it be visible? The only reasons why it isn't are ownership type arguments. How is that moral or right when it is my life that is on the line? And no, I'm not paranoid. I accept risk as part of life. I suspect most people would be shocked at how failure prone software really is. Derek
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 6:35 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] *Sigh*
The company that sold you that pacemaker is also selling you insurance that it works. I.e. they have taken on the financial risk of your accidental death due to a malfunction of their product. This is a perfect example of software that, if all software were free as in beer, would never get written in the first place. Who would accept the financial risk of accidentally killing you? Or maybe you would rather choose a pacemaker "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
No, you're probably quite glad you didn't have to settle for that, glad that you could pay for something better. But the company that made your pacemaker was under no moral obligation to give it to you for free. I'm quite frankly sick of RMS telling you otherwise.
I'm not going to explain it again: I prefer free software myself where possible. I'm just saying that it's not always possible, due to the economics of warranties and insurance. If you think I'm wrong, prove it by releasing some usable safety critical free software. If you warrant it, your lawyer will tell you you're nuts. If you don't, nobody (that isn't nuts) will use it.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 7:21 UTC (Thu) by dthurston (guest, #4603) [Link] The manufacturer of the pacemaker warrants the complete system, including the software. This is true regardless of the source of the software, which could come be free software or might come from some other company altogether. In any case, it's the job of the manufacturer to make sure that it accomplishes its intended purpose in the intended use.
The warranty (at least in this case) belongs on the complete system, not on the software, and there is absolutely no difference between the different models of software production here.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 11:13 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] The company that sold you that pacemaker is also selling you insurance that it works. I.e. they have taken on the financial risk of your accidental death due to a malfunction of their product.I wonder, what use does a warranty have from personal perspective, after the person, who got the warranty, is dead? In that case, it seem's to me that it doesn't matter, who "owns" the code or how much one party paid for it to some other party, let's say, the "owner of the IP".
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 12:09 UTC (Thu) by tgb (guest, #745) [Link]
I don't believe RMS has ever advocated free-as-in-beer software, only free-as-in-freedom software.
Just because the source comes with no warranty, doesn't mean you (or for that matter, anybody else) can't sit down and take the burden of risk on yourself (which is all the insurance company has done). Hey, you can even sell it and say (as you've mentioned above, as RedHat do) "this version of software, I'll certify it as being safe! If you want a warranty, it'll cost you $5,000 a pop.". You have the freedom to do that. If you're feeling rich, you could give warranties away for free. It's your choice. If someone then comes along and pays you $5,000 for your warrantied GPL software, that's also fine. He can even get, inspect and modify that code. However, your warranty would almost certainly stop being effective at that point. That person could potentially resubmit the changes back to you and you could, if you so chose, rewarranty it, maybe for another $5,000, maybe more. What I'm getting at is that Free Software doesn't come with any warranty, but that doesn't stop you, or anyone else, providing a warranty, either on the original source or on any modified versions.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 24, 2004 10:12 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] If someone then comes along and pays you $5,000 for your warrantied GPL software, that's also fine. He can even get, inspect and modify that code. However, your warranty would almost certainly stop being effective at that point.Isn't this "loss of freedom" (i.e. the user can't modify the code because the warranty is lost) againts the spirit of the GPL?
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 24, 2004 18:38 UTC (Fri) by oska (guest, #25556) [Link] Isn't this "loss of freedom" (i.e. the user can't modify the code because the warranty is lost) againts the spirit of the GPL? No, because there is no legal requirement stopping the user from modifying the code. Instead they are making a choice to use the version of the software as covered under a particular warranty. With free software you open up a market for people to compete in offering you a warranty on a particular version of that software. With proprietary software, you really only have the option of obtaining a warranty from the manufacturer as only they can determine their exposure to risk by viewing the source code. Once again, the result is more freedom not less.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 13:25 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "But the company that made your pacemaker was under no moral obligation to give it to you for free. I'm quite frankly sick of RMS telling you otherwise.
I'm not going to explain it again: I prefer free software myself where possible."
You abviously don't have to explain again, but saying RMS tells you to give away your work for no charge is equating libre with gratis and makes at least some others think you just don't get what free software (at least the GPL and copyleft kind) is all about.
This confusion is often portrayed by those who are against free software. If you do get it, but still think that libre necessarily implies gratis then you should make that argument and not assume it as many of us do not think that one implies the other.
certainly
gratis is not equal to libre
I think you want us to believe
libre is a subset of gratis
It will take a lot to convince me of that.
Others have pointed out that there is nothing preventing someone from tying the warranty to some unmodified version of free code and charging per seat for warranties. You would be free to change the code but would void your warranty in doing so. What do you see as the problems (financial) with this approach?
all the best,
drew
For the last time... Posted Dec 23, 2004 14:55 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] [...] you just don't get what free software (at least the GPL and copyleft kind) is all about [...]Trust me: I get it. I advocate for free software. I write free software. I've even managed to get paid to write free software. In fact, I choose not to use BK for kernel work. As I said, I have a ton of respect for RMS. However, I just don't accept that it's a moral imperative that all software must be free software. It annoys me that RMS calls some of my work unethical, while hypocritically continuing to use that same type of work every day of his life.
For the last time... Posted Dec 23, 2004 19:17 UTC (Thu) by corey_s (guest, #12510) [Link] "As I said, I have a ton of respect for RMS. However, I just don't accept that it's a moral imperative that all software must be free software." Sure, ok. Do you believe that it is important that as much software as possible should be free (as in speech)? "It annoys me that RMS calls some of my work unethical, while hypocritically continuing to use that same type of work every day of his life." You keep saying this, but I think it's an extremely ridiculous view... apparently you think that he ( and everyone else who holds similar ideas ) should simply stop participating in life? Stop driving vehicles, stop flying in airplanes, stop using the bank, never purchase anything from stores, never walk across a cross-walk, never use a garage door opener, stop listening to stereos... etc, etc, ad infinitum. Or - since he cannot reasonably avoid doing such, then you assert that he and others stop asserting that non-free software is unethical? That's absurd.
For the last time... Posted Dec 23, 2004 21:24 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] If you insist on complaining about farmers, remember: don't talk while your mouth is full.
For the last time... Posted Dec 23, 2004 20:46 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] ""But the company that made your pacemaker was under no moral obligation to give it to you for free. I'm quite frankly sick of RMS telling you otherwise."
"Trust me: I get it."
I will trust that you get it. However, you seem to be mixing gratis and libre incorrectly in your statement.
You seem to be saying that RMS says the company that made the pacemaker code is under a moral obligation to make it available gratis when what he says is thet the code should be available libre. You say you are sick of him telling you there is a moral obligation to give code gratis. I have never seen him say this. Do you understand how your statement can be construed to be saying this?
Also, if you check things out, he seems very practical in his approach to these things. It seems understood that we cannot get to this total freedom overnight.
all the best,
drew
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 16:53 UTC (Thu) by smamunr (guest, #26850) [Link] Even though Linux is distributed under GPL with following section,"AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, Research shows that bug to code ratio is close to 1:6000 which is by far much superior to any proprietary code. Now do you want warranty or want to take risk @ 1:100 ratio ? Now those who are warranty freaks can get it from other company for a price for a specific version of the code which could easily compare against proprietary insurence. The best part is the author or the origin company if fails to exist then no one is going to cover your warranty even for a price!!! How is that sound? If you dont belive me then look at bankruptcy courts how many company is filing bankruptcy protection? Thanks
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 24, 2004 10:24 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Research shows that bug to code ratio is close to 1:6000 which is by far much superior to any proprietary code. Now do you want warranty or want to take risk @ 1:100 ratio ?These are just numbers. What I've experienced is that the relatively bug free open source Linux kernel 2.6.[89] kept crashing all over the place, while the proprietary code (~200k C++ and Java lines) we've released in June haven't received a single fault report from the costumers. It's not the openess of the source that matters, but the people who write it, the people who test it, the people who set (and adjust!) the deadlines, etc.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Jan 6, 2005 14:11 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] smamunr wrote:Research shows that bug to code ratio is close to 1:6000 which is by far much superior to any proprietary code.
That can't be true. Free software is very likely to be better (less buggy) than proprietary software on average, but I'm quite sure that there are proprietary safety-critical systems that really do have very low bug rates - much better than average free software. Enormous amounts of time and effort go into specifying all possibilities, using specially designed languages and compilers, examining corner cases and just plain testing. All that is independent of the licensing used on the code of course, so I disagree with MMH's thesis that RMS is a hypocrite and embedded code must be non-free in order to be safe/warrantied, but also disagree with the above assertion that all free software is less buggey than all proprietary software.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:11 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " This is a perfect example of software that, if all software were free as in beer, would never get written in the first place. Who would accept the financial risk of accidentally killing you? Or maybe you would rather choose a pacemaker "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. "
Who would accept the financial risk ?... just about averybody that test his software thoroughly, so that the software meets some strict criteria !
The part that you express in BOLD is *in the licences* of just about every piece of commercial software out there, proprietary or open sourced. It just means that *common commercial* software is not suitable to take financial risks, period.
Yes,... its about to impossible to create a community arround some specific piece of software, that needs extensive test to meet very stiff criteria, and depend on that community for results. That's not the way Open Source functions,..., it has to be done by a private/proprietary interest group, most probabily a commercial entity.
But i fail to see the reason why that interest group can't take or create a version of open source software, and test it and modified it so that it meets the stiff criteria wanted. Then that open source based software could be as suitable for heart pacemakers as any other piece of proprietary software.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 24, 2004 21:10 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Who said anyone should give away things free? All I am saying is that thesoftware that we depend upon is a black box. There are many complicated devices I work on (and pay good money for) where the function and design is fully documented. It doesn't cause them to go out of business. Why should software be different? The algorithms used in a pacemaker are probably not that complicated. The science is in the medical side where the physics of heart operation are deciphered and strategies to correct malfunction are devised. Usually the science is published. The key to these devices is long life and reliable repeatable operation. I'm sure the developers of these devices take great care due to the liabilities and awareness of the cost of failure. Those who make these devices deserve to be paid well for their work. But it is still a black box. I'm 5 years into the life of my device, and in 4 or so years will get a replacement due to the batteries running down. The device I have is quite sophisticated, with logging and testing functions. Last checkup the technician asked me what I did on sunday evenings at 7PM because there were events logged. I play hockey. 10 years in technology is forever. The next device will probably have remote monitoring, and a whole lot of other features which will help people will less common syndromes. More code will be put into a smaller device. The odds of bugs grows with the size of the code. How many iterations of software will be required before that device is stable and reliable? This is a reality in any software driven device. Including ones where the installation procedure requires surgery. Who knows, but they may have the ability to patch the running software. I don't want the software so I can build a pacemaker. I want it open. I want people to have the opportunity at least to look at it. Call it peer review. A little story. The local school board purchased and installed an intrusion detection system and found a flaw in the operation. They have a fellow driving bus who is a refugee of some death march development team. He disassembled the 8086 code that ran the device and found the bug that was causing the problem. He either burnt a new rom with the fixed code, or got the manufacturer to fix it and send them a chip. Either way, the black box was put under light and a problem fixed. Warranties and product liability and other niceties that supposedly keep us all happy usually don't, and especially don't with software. In my day to day work I end up having to work around the limitations of black boxes to get the thing working so I can get paid. People hide the source code for many reasons that frankly are not my concern. I really don't give a damn about the imperatives of someone's business plan. If I have to it tells me the industry is profoundly dysfunctional. Derek
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 11:06 UTC (Thu) by cross (guest, #13601) [Link] I'm not sure that you quite get it. Price doesn't come into it. It's "Free" as in "Free Market Capitalism".
The GPL is simply an enabling technology that brings Free Market Capitalism in the Adam Smith model to the Intellectual Property space. "Free" in this context does not refer to the price, it means the basic freedoms The Founders wrote the Constitution to guarantee. It means that when you buy a piece of intellectual property (e.g software), you can treat it in the same way you treat all the physical property you buy. You are free to use it as you see fit (within the law), you are free to modify it, free to take it apart for spare parts, free to sell it or give it away, free to use it as the basis of your own products even in free market competiton with the original seller, and so on and so forth.
For an example, contrast the position you are in when you buy a typewriter versus wordprocessing software, or a physical ghetto-blaster versus a proprietary software only media player. Only the latter comes with an EULA detailing who you may permit to use it, how you may dispose of it, what you are permitted to use it for and reams of small print taking away the rights that you took for granted when you bought the physical property.
Don't fall for the rhetoric used by those intellectual property owners who wish strip away your basic freedoms to do as you wish with your own property. Thomas Jefferson was not a communist. The freedom granted by the GPL is presumed to be the well understood default in a Free Market. For this reason the copyright clause in the Constitution is written as it is, granting Congress the power to issue temporary exemptions from competition in the form of copyrights and patents only provided they are temporary and for specific purpose.
Without that constitutional permission, Congress would have no right at all to issue the exemptions from free market competition we call copyrights and patents. In a truly free market as envisaged by The Founders, anyone, including you, would be free to compete against incumbent monopolies by making and selling the same products, whether that be tea, cloth, books, steam engines, Elvis Presley songs or wordprocessing software. The temporary exemption is there to allow the original developer a head start to recover the costs you didn't have to outlay in bringing that product to market, before exposing them to the forces of normal free market capitalism. Without permission to give them that head start, the default in the Founders view was clearly that they would be subject to the forces of the free market from day one, not that they would have a monopoly forever.
It is only because in modern times the "temporary" exemption from Free Market Capitalism given to intellectual property owners has been extended for practical purposes to "forever minus one day", as Sonny Bono so succinctly put it, that we need people like Richard Stallman to remind us us what Freedoms the Founders were guaranteeing us as commonly held rights against globalizing multinational corporations like the East India Company, and to draw our attention to the fact that we are in fact losing them and returning to the property landscape of Medieval Europe.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 12:48 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Sorry for shor and fast answers to the stereotypical criticism to RMS.You are comparing software in everyone's PC than can do almost anything your brain can imagine to software designed to do just _specific_ things, like pressing a blue button to play a song. Is like asking "freedom to modify" your refrigerator to act like a oven too. Impossible, but at least you can call _any_ technician to repair it, which is not true in proprietary software _industry_ where the only one than can fix problem is the original producer. An intrinsic monopolistic relationship... That's to say: RMS flies in a airplane, he is no directly using/interested in modifying the plane's avionics. It's stupid. That kind of software is a specific implementation for a especific purpose, better not to change it. And I suppose RMS would be happier if all avionics or car software is also free, but that will give more freedom to very few people. Furthermore, even if you have the software you still need tons of expensive atoms to make it run. So, apples and oranges.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 16:39 UTC (Thu) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link] I don't reject the claim. RMS is asking that the users have maximal choice. He is saying that it is unethical to prevent users from improving software as a community.
Let's take your pacemaker/warranty example. You're saying that it's ethical to warranty an exact version of software, and to honor that warranty on unmodified software only. I agree. In fact, I'll go one better. If only one version of pacemaker software has been tested in clinical trials, it may be unethical to warranty any modified version.
But it would not be unethical to *distribute* a modified version, *as long as* you provide the freedom for experts to inspect it and ensure that it works. It would again be unethical to implant such distributed software in a patient unless the modified version had been clinically tested.
But, let's expand the example. If an outside expert knows how to improve current pacemaker software, but he has no rights to inspect, modify, or distribute it, is it ethical to deny him the right to do so? I say, and RMS says, it is absolutely unethical. After all, that would explicitly deny all potential users the benefits of the software, and of the improved pacemakers. In the high stakes you cite, software freedom now becomes a matter of life and death.
You're demanding that RMS absolve your company, and stop calling it unethical, for refusing to allow the community to improve your important software. He will and should do no such thing. If your company wants to maximize its ethical position, it should do this:
Warranty exact, tested, proven-safe versions of your software.
Refuse to warranty, and even refuse to implant in a patient, any untested, unproven modified version of that software.
I'm sure this is your current policy. But don't stop there:
Distribute the software under a license that allows others to inspect, modify, distribute, and even use your software. At this point, you're probably saying gotcha-- what if someone creates a malicious version, sells pacemakers, and kills people? Don't forget that they have the power to do so now, as your company has always had.
If you release your software as free software, now you're being ethical. What you're doing is giving the entire community a base of known working software to improve upon. To refuse others the chance to do so would be the ethical equivalent of you personally creating a safer version of your software and refusing to let your company embed it in its pacemakers.
Don't let the economics confuse you into thinking that this will reduce your company's ability to help people. Your company has far less ability to develop the best pacemaker software than would the entire community of experts on such software. Your company, and all the others, would have access to the best software that you, as a community, can develop.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:54 UTC (Thu) by MMH (guest, #16204) [Link] (For the record, I do not write pacemaker software.) I commend you for the most well-reasoned reply so far: you've given many good reasons why free software is desirable. Again, I prefer F/OSS myself. That still doesn't make proprietary software unethical. To continue the example, it would only be unethical if I were preventing you from implementing your own free pacemaker software. Well have at it, I certainly won't stop you. I disagree with RMS, and agree with Linus and McVoy: the author decides the license, and users are free to accept that license or not. Again, I happen to choose not to accept McVoy's BK license. If you believe that proprietary code is unethical, I humbly suggest you stop using it - ALL OF IT - including posting to this forum (as LWN.net is not free code). Only then will arguments about the ethics of non-free licenses be something other than hypocritical whining.
Re: "Proprietary software is unethical..." Posted Dec 23, 2004 19:48 UTC (Thu) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link] Your welcome.
I don't disagree that anyone claiming to be "unsoiled" with propietary software is being naive. It's like trying to boycott GE -- there are too many parts of modern life touched by them. However, I don't see anything wrong with *trying* as hard as possible to avoid proprietary software, which is what RMS is really asking us to do.
As for desirable versus ethical, well, I admit that sharing information has rarely been seen as a moral imperative, but that doesn't mean that it isn't. I do consider it unethical to deny others the opportunity to improve upon the software you're asking them to rely upon; i.e. I consider it unethical to release software under a proprietary license, and moreso when users have no alternatives.
I may differ from RMS in this, but I consider the question of whether to *use* such software murkier.
I guess what RMS has always asked is for civil disobedience, for us to refuse to be part of an unethical system. And, yes, he is rightly putting a greater responsibility on those of us who are capable of coding their way out of that system. He's asking us to go through the pain of living in the alternative system while we build it. That is, after all, the best way to ensure it gets built.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 3:29 UTC (Thu) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] He is also incorrect with his statement that when you own a house you can do whatever you want with it. That shows all too clearly that free software hasn't generated enough money for him that he owns a house. If he did own a house and he did want to do anything with it he would quickly find out that where he lives they have rules about what you may and may not do. Lots and lots of rules.
There is no free lunch and free software is no exception. As Jamie Zawinski says "But as we all know, Linux is only free if your time has no value" and I think that applies to things beyond Linux.
Don't get your undies in a bundy, I love Linux and I suspect that I have personally sacrificed more time and money than any of our gentle readers in support of Linux. But there is some truth in Jamie's comment. If you want it to work you tend to have to pay for it.
A good example is that I was recently setting up a webcam for my mother, who is old and has Parkinson's Disease. I wanted her to be able to see my kids because we are a long way apart. After wrestling with Linux for a few hours I gave up and attached it to a Windows box and it worked great in 5 minutes. This was even though this webcam used to work with Linux just fine. The problem had to do with the USB drivers which had been removed because of the oh-so-pure licensing issues. How nice, I'm sure I owe RMS a big thank you for screwing over my ability to use Linux to help my mother.
Houses and freedom Posted Dec 23, 2004 3:57 UTC (Thu) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Certainly there are zoning and safety restrictions that limit what you can do with your house. Even free software has restrictions on what you can write (e.g. you can't infringe other copyrights).
However, if your house were covered by a proprietary software license, you couldn't even change the paint color, or add a phone jack in another room. You might not be allowed to describe it to your local newspaper reporter, and you might be prohibited from selling it. When it eventually collapsed due to age, you would not be allowed to repair it.
Of course, software is usually *licensed*, not owned, so it's more like renting a house. Interestingly, many/most housing rental agreements prevent you from painting or rewiring houses without owner consent.
Any analogy between software and material things is problematic, but this one doesn't seem so bad, within limits.
Houses and freedom Posted Dec 23, 2004 20:53 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Certainly there are zoning and safety restrictions that limit what you can do with your house. Even free software has restrictions on what you can write (e.g. you can't infringe other copyrights). "
But isn't there a terrible contradiction. I mean free software has licenses that privilege users, yet one of the main complains is the unability to play with a very large proportion of users hardware out there.
It is obviuos that a licence is part of a policy that developers want applied, it is not a technical answer to problems!...
And results from that policy that what open source free software developers want is that hardware developers release only open sourced technical data and or software... but hardware developers haven't released nothing really relevant and significative, as open sourced, in the last 20 years... and most probabily the 'status quo' will be maintained for the next 20...
Dont take me wrong... ive been an open source activist for long years now, and i dont want to defend proprietary interests, other than the most fundamental and in common sense right that everybody has, that if you dont agree to a licence you are not obligated to accept it.
So there enter the contradiction:- a licence, that as a political instrument, has been all in favor of the users, has been *mostly* rejected by the "twin soul" the "unavoidable part" of software that is hardware, and has contributed instead to prevent users from using a large proportion of IT solutions. It might sound rogue, but if you look at it coldly and rationaly, that is true.
And there seems not to be a political solution for the case!... the war has been going on for to long.
But there enter the technical solution ! that is:- Ins't there some technical provisions for the hardware driving, that the F/LOSS can take, specialy in kernel territory, so that the clash of licences can be avoided ?,... i mean a technical solution that dont deprive kernel developers from having all source code, for the machines they work on, from top to bottom... and for that matter facilitates the *guessing part* of reverse engineering solutions... and for that matter facilitates debugging... and for that matter facilitates general development by reducing source code bases... and for that matter facilitates advanced applications such as Hard Real Time solutions...
Yes,... i belive a true *in-kernel* split hardware device driver model would allow al that, and yes it also would allow propritary binary only *special* modules to be inserted into the kernels...
*special* , not because those modules can be made from sources that "are" open sourced or not, but because "we" can easly sandbox them, making them run in controled environments.
i would very much prefer so, a *no gray area* solution, to the current Linux kernel state of affairs of writing an open source interface, that spreads and takes advantage of many structures inside kernel, helping the development of none, for one brand only, and that in end inserts a *special* proprietary binary only module, and all this with the goal of making kernels this way distributables.
gosh... that makes a joke of not mixing policy with implementation A LA GRAND!!
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 5:04 UTC (Thu) by JohnBell (guest, #12625) [Link] Three words... federal land grant.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 6:16 UTC (Thu) by set (guest, #4788) [Link] Well, you might owe RMS a big thankyou for the *existance* of linux,asit surely would have been a lot harder to get it off the ground without GNU and the GPL... (as contrasted to the inability to easily customize and contribute to minix.) As far as the house analogy goes, speaking as the owner of a few and the denizen of several privately owned houses, it is my experience that people *do* do whatever they want to them;) But the misdirection of building codes aside, I appreciate the analogy as I modify my house to suit my needs extensively, and although I tend to do all my own work, I also appreciate that there are many contracters I can get bids from to do almost anything I can imagine.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 8:13 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] I think the thing that a lot of the fundamentalist OSS types fail to realize is that OSS will live or die in any particular sector of the software market on its own merits. Trying to verbally club to death those of us who are less conservative or even god forbid agnostic on this topic is at best pointless and at worst counter productive.
Microsoft fears OSS, and with good reason. Bill Gates is rapidly being passed by Linus Torvalds as the single most influential person in the software industry. Linux continues to make gains in the server market and is poised to gain significant market share in the desktop area over the next few years.
Relax, enjoy the success, and let nature take its course. Where OSS makes sense it will thrive. Where it doesn't it will not. And the world will be in no way worse off because of this.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 13:08 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "There is no free lunch and free software is no exception."
You are showing either ignorance or intent to deceive or something else I cannot figure out when you equate free software (freedom) with a free lunch (price) unless where you come from lunches generally come with EULAs. I have not run across those sorts of non-free lunches in my travels though. Only the non-free kind that require me to give money in exchange.
all the best,
drew
ps - I never (afaik) use ignorance in a negative manner as I know we are all ignorant of some things.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 26, 2004 20:28 UTC (Sun) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Please don't feign ignorance. RMS has made plenty of money to buy a house.And his goal isn't, as you imply, to earn money.
Saying that Free Software isn't a "free lunch" is silly and meaningless.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 11:13 UTC (Thu) by eyal (subscriber, #949) [Link] RMS:Of course, some software companies would object to this, just as some food companies resisted the requirement to publish the ingredients and nutritional information. The question should not be up to them. Funny freedom - FORCE BY LAW food or software companies to publish information against their will. I am all for FOSS and I'm aware of the big part RMS plays in it, but canceling someone else's freedom is not a good way to argue for freedom. Let food or software manufactuers publish whatever they want, if anything at all, and let consumers choose what's best for them. That's freedom. EZ
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 13:00 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Can you explain to everyone which freedom is GPL canceling? You are justrepating FUD. Consumer/users freedom cancelled? Users forced to publish information? WRONG, VERY WRONG. Users can do ANYTHING with the software, they can maintain all their modifications secret. They are _not forced_ to publish anything. The only constraint is that you that users becomes a DISTRIBUTOR of GPLed software they must provide the same source code with the _same_ license that _allowed_ them to create derivative work. BTW GPL ensures that the "second generation" users still have the same freedom. BSD license cannot assure these freedom, as RMS explained very well, it only gives power to middlemen, which can efectively cancel their users' freedom. Do remember that GPL license is an _authorisation_ to use and modify third party software. I suppose you don't think EULAs provide more freedom? Don't you? Of course you are no forced to use or _distribute_ GPLed software. In both cases you have no obligations at all. Furthermore, in the later you have only advantages from others work. So, don't be an anti GPL drone, think two minutes before.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 13:02 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "Let food or software manufactuers publish whatever they want, if anything at all, and let consumers choose what's best for them. That's freedom."
I see your point, but don't be naive. Do away with all corporations (not that I think we should do this - that is a different discussion) so that we come a little closer to equal bargaining power between the players and come back and make the same arguement.
all the best,
drew
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 15:50 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] You are an idiot.
There is no such thing as "absolute freedom". Whenever a right is granted to one person, it is taken away from another. When slaves were given the right to choose their profession, own possessions, and keep the fruits of their labour, the slave owners lost their right to tell them what to do, and to have them work for nothing. The fact that someone is losing a freedom does not mean that the action is wrong. When a database right was invented in the EU, all EU citizens lost the right to distribute databases of facts. But some unsavoury companies gained the right to restrict that distribution.
RMS is arguing that in this case the balance of rights is wrong. Its up to each person whether they agree, but it is not in general wrong to "force" people to do things - eg , the police force you to stop killing people, the courts force you to stop commiting fraud. There is no rule of law without the threat of force ( this is the phrase "international law" should be replaced with "international anarchy" - there is no credible enforcement).
This reminds me of the whole US gun debate : you don't have the right to bear nuclear weapons, and even in the UK I have the right to a knife in my own house. Its just arguing over the degree to which you have the right to arms: which arms do I have a right to bear?
Read Locke.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:24 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] "There is no such thing as "absolute freedom". Whenever a right is granted to one person, it is taken away from another. When slaves were given the right to choose their profession, own possessions, and keep the fruits of their labour, the slave owners lost their right to tell them what to do, and to have them work for nothing."
In law, maybe, but you know darn well the "slave owners" never had that right in the first place. Somebody told them they did, and those people wound up slaves through deceit, kidnapping, and all other manner of evil behavior.
Your example is horrid.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 20:26 UTC (Thu) by cthulhu (subscriber, #4776) [Link] "Whenever a right is granted to one person, it is taken away from another."
This is only the case with property rights. All other rights (freedom of speech, right to bear arms...) do not deprive others of the same right. Kind of an interesting lack of symmetry. This applies directly to the comments about slavery, as slaves were considered property.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 24, 2004 1:06 UTC (Fri) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] Sorry, thats complete rubbish.
When you have freedom of speech, others freedom to suppress your speech is taken away. Eg if freedom of speech trumped copyright, you would be removing copyright "owners" freedom to restrict your distribution of their texts.
When you have the right to bear arms, others (ie the govts) freedom to remove those weapons is removed.
The negative & postive right distinction here doesn't really help : there would be absolutely no point in having a freedom or right if it did not in some way control the actions of other entities. Eg it forces an entity to do something, or forces an entity not to.
Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that physical property is magically different just because it is excludable and rivalrous.
My point here was really just to make clear that you can't oppose something merely on the grounds that it puts an obligation on an entity or company. That is the nature of rights, and freedoms. You have to come up with a reason why that obligation is wrong.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 24, 2004 1:15 UTC (Fri) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] "In law, maybe"
That was my point. I don't know how I could have made it much clearer : I picked the most odious example of people with an unjustifiable freedom. That freedom was removed, and it was granted to other people. We (hopefully) all agree that it was the correct choice : but it did involve coercion and in some outlandish areas even civl wars to achieve. I hope you don't feel that any reference to slavery is unacceptable, I feel that its abolition is one of the greatest acheivements of our society. Hopefully, someday, the job will be finished and the hundreds of thousands of slave owners in India and east Africa will be forced to comply with the laws of their own countries.
The fact that people are forced to comply with an obligation is not sufficient reason to oppose it. In fact, no right can possibly be implemented without imposing an obligation or restriction on some entity or set of entities. To rationally oppose it, you need to come up with a reason the right is wrong ;-)
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:16 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Please quote words in the proper context.
The reporter was the one that raised the issue of a possible law to require software's source to be published. RMS responded that such a law would generally be nice, though not a must. He has no reason to object to such a (in his own words) hypothetical law, but never said it was necessary.
Food companies are forced by the law to specify the contents of the package because you as a consumer can have no tools to inspect it, and it can have direct effect on your life. I suggest that you invastigate what led to the legistlation of those laws to realise just how useful they are.
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 17:15 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] Almost all the arguments I've heard regarding the benefits of "proprietary as in secret" software don't hold water, ultimately.
Think of software's effect on your life the way you think of your home's effect on your life. What would you do if, for example, several of the (improperly-installed-by-the-builder) pipes in your house, *including the gas pipes*, started leaking, long after the "warranty" on the building is up? Let's suppose, furhter, that the "builder's heirs", as in "the new company," chose to not provide service for out-of-warranty buildings, and had some kind of "proprietary technology" in those pipes.
Now, all the years I have owned a home, almost all the facilities involved therein have been fixable and modifiable by *whatever service provider I chose to use." Some of the plumbing fixtures are even "standard," which means I can have my provider replace them with whatever he finds on the market, or even go to the "faucet shop" and pick up whatever I'd like to put in.
An example: We bought a range hood from Sears, and when the "installer" came out, he told me I couldn't use it because the exhaust pipe was offset from the middle of the cabinet, and wouldn't therefore match up to the exhaust vent in the top of the range hood. After several frustrating attempts to get a Sears service person to come and fix the problem, (and meanwhile my kitchen had a piece of BX snaking out of the wall where the range hood would go,) I was able to hire a metal worker to re-do part of the ducting from the exhaust vent, such that it jogged at an angle. The metal worker even showed me how it was sone, so I could do it myself in the future, in a pinch. Then, since I was angry with Sears, I went to another vendor to get a different range hood, and installed it myself.
This is the direction in which I would like to see the software industry move---one in which any software can be repaired by any contractor. Ultimately, there should be qualification credentials for such people, so that the client will be reasonably certain the work is done properly.
None of the examples I have seen, supporting proprietary software, work for me.
There is one reluctant compromise I would make: If a piece of proprietary software becomes orphaned, the source code (which should have been placed in escrow at the time the software was produced,) should be available to users of the software. so that changes and improvements may be possible after the original company loses interest, or views the software as "no longer profitable", etc.
Personally, I believe the thing that galls me the most about proprietary-software agruments is that it reminds me of those radio stations where they know, ahead of time, what music I will like and what music I won't, because of some metric or another having something to do with "popularity." I really hate it when people tell me what's good for me. I hate it even more when they shrug their shoulders at my suffering because "we don't sell/fix/make/support that anymore, and it's proprietary."
Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience: The RMS Interview (O'ReillyNet) Posted Dec 23, 2004 22:03 UTC (Thu) by PhilipStephens (guest, #16336) [Link] You know, I find it somewhat amazing how personal people take RMS's opinion that all software should be available as source code. I know that he has become a very well known personality, and his views are published widely, but come on people--it's just his opinion. The notion that the whole world is likely to take his opinion to heart and free all software in the near future (or even in our lifetime) is far from realistic. My personal opinion is that those of you who fear that your jobs are at risk because of the free software movement are being a little melodramatic. Sure, it could happen--but then again, it may not.
I don't know how many people agree with RMS in whole, but there are plenty of us who agree that having source code freely available for a wide variety of computing tasks is a good thing. I don't subscribe to the alarmist view that free software is going to destroy the software industry, but even if it seemed like such an event was coming to pass, I wouldn't stop releasing source code written personally by me under the GPL just to protect a dying industry.
In our capitalist system, everyone has the right to try and sell anything they think will make them money: the free market will decide if what you are trying to sell is truly "worth" anything. If, at some point in your company's history, what you are trying to sell is no longer considered worth buying (perhaps because others are giving away similiar products or services "for free"), then you go out of business. It's all very sad for those who ran the business and those who worked for the business, but it's just a fact of life. Get used to it.
In our social system, everyone has the right to give stuff away, or to offer their services for free. There are some limits in the law (mainly related to companies who give aways stuff in order to destroy the competition and THEN raise prices when there is no competitive pressure left), but those limits are not generally recognised as having anything to do with the notion of charity. For what is free software but a charitable donation?
You could quibble over definitions and argue that the GPL prevents software companies from making use of such charity, but since when did our capitalist system presume that corporations were entitled to charity? The whole underlying notion of capitalism is that you take your chances in the free market--you have no fundemental entitlement to anything (other than for the workings of the free market to be as "fair" as possible to all who participate--even then, not everyone agrees with THAT, and frequently attempt to game the system to their own benefit).
Taking what RMS says about free software as a personal affront to those that write commerical software is about as silly as complaining that Habitats For Humanity building cheap houses is a personal affront to the building industry. It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but hopefully you get my point.
|
|
||||||||||||