Balancing accessibility and software freedom [LWN.net]

Balancing accessibility and software freedom

Posted Aug 9, 2010 10:35 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: Balancing accessibility and software freedom by dgm
Parent article: Balancing accessibility and software freedom

Really, this is not a matter of opinion. Stallman wants to ban proprietary software, and he would if he could. This is laid out in The GNU Manifesto: "Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned." And similar language elsewhere. In fact, in the very same thread under discussion here, he says "Proprietary software is digital colonization, unjust and evil. Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software."

If it is silly to expect moral guidance from the FSF (and I agree it is), it is silly for RMS to rant about ethics as he does in most of his writings (good example here). RMS declaring proprietary software evil doesn't make it so, but try telling him that.

So, when you say,

>the fact that the FSF doesn't endorse the use of a proprietary tool doesn't mean that people can't use them if that's what they think it's best for them

it doesn't mean that to you and me: but RMS does consider it unethical (and indeed, being a willing accessory to evil.)

Actually, the entire GNU movement, it seems to me now (though it may not have been obvious 30 years ago), was based on a misdiagnosis. RMS's original problem was being unable to change the control program for a printer: but the problem was not the closed-source program, but the opaque interface. If the printer standards had been open and documented, RMS could have written his own driver program.

Likewise, if makers of nonstandard devices the world over suddenly decided to open-source their opaque and unintelligible drivers, we would not be much better off. If they opened their device documentation and specifications, we would be better off.

OpenBSD understands that open standards in hardware are the most important thing for users. RMS, despite his original motivation that illustrates this point, still doesn't seem to get it.

(And if proprietary text-speech programs were "banned", or if blind computer users are dissuaded from them because they are "unjust" and "evil", it is hard to say who would be better off. Certainly not the blind users! Even if it is an evil, allowing such a tool to plug into an otherwise free platform surely is a lesser evil than forcing such users to all-proprietary solutions? No, not to RMS. Not only is such software "evil" but there are no shades: it is all irredeemably evil regardless of quantity or context.)

(Log in to post comments)

Balancing accessibility and software freedom

Posted Aug 10, 2010 17:41 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

You're inventing stuff again. For example:

And if proprietary text-speech programs were "banned" [...]

You're extrapolating what you think RMS would call for, and you've gotten it wrong. RMS has said that if a law could be passed tomorrow to ban proprietary software, he would be against it. His reasoning is based on the idea that laws that don't express the will of the people are unjustified, and because there are freedom of expression considerations. First public opinion has to be changed, and then society could consider a law banning proprietary software, or banning just the sale of proprietary software.

You've also a factual mistake here:

the problem was not the closed-source program, but the opaque interface. If the printer standards had been open and documented, RMS could have written his own driver program.

Nope, it wasn't about drivers or APIs or documentation. They previously had a printer that ran free software, and they added a feature to the printer to send out a message when it was jammed. Then they got a new printer and wanted to add this feature to the printer, but couldn't because they didn't have the source code.

Balancing accessibility and software freedom

Posted Aug 11, 2010 7:04 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

The word "banned" was not mine: it was taken from the GNU manifesto and I quoted it in adequate context, I believe. A literal-minded person could argue that RMS is not himself calling for a ban, only saying it would be nice if the ban occurred. And he wrote, as of a couple of weeks ago, "Our goal is therefore to eliminate proprietary software." Of course proprietary software can theoretically be eliminated via free-market competition, but surely not even RMS believes that that is a practical possibility.

Can you supply a link to RMS's stance as you describe it? It sounds inconsistent with his reiterated "good versus evil" view. Slavery was evil: if public opinion supported slavery, would RMS have been opposed to banning it? I think not.

I stand corrected about the printer, but that makes it even more irrelevant. It is usually impossible to change the software (firmware) on a device like a printer. The realistic situation today would be that the printer can communicate a paper jam, and the proprietary Windows driver can read the communication, but the interface is not documented properly and therefore that functionality is missing on a Linux system.