Taking a Principled Position on Software Freedom

Posted 14 Jul 2009 at 15:26 UTC by mako Share This

Those of us in the free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) community know the routine by now. Despite the fact that "free software" and "open source" refer to the same software and the same communities, supporters of "free software" like the FSF would have us advocate for FLOSS by talking about users' rights to use, modify, share, and cooperate; open source supporters like the Open Source Initiative would have us advocate for software by talking about how securing these rights produces software with "better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility [and] lower cost."

One reason I tend to stay away from "open source" claims in my own advocacy is that I'm worried by the way that these arguments rely on a set of often dubious empirical claims of superiority. Free software, on the other hand, can be seen as statement of principles. Regardless of whether we say "free software" or "open source," I've found that a focus on principled statements is both more robust against counter-arguments and does a better job of describing the motivations of most contributors.

Principles can be thought of like opinions. They may or not be compelling but are neither right or wrong outside of a particular ethical framework. Most people won't demand evidence for someone's commitment to nonviolence or an adherence to the Golden Rule. What would you need to prove? Principles are based on a type of Utopianism; they are a statement of how we think things should be.

On the other hand, open source's argument that openness leads to better software or a better software development methodology can be measured, tested, and declared right or wrong. A FLOSS program might be better or more reliable than proprietary software. Or it might be worse. The open source methodology might be lower cost for a consumer or more profitable for a producer. Or it might not. There are plenty of FLOSS success stories. There are many more failures.

The problem for open source advocates is that while FLOSS is often better than proprietary software, this is not always the case. I was using FLOSS in the early 1990s when GNU/Linux was indisputably less featureful and buggier than its proprietary competitors. On the business side, we learned in the Dot Com boom and bust that, despite Eric Raymond's assurances, building a successful FLOSS project turned out to be harder than a COPYING file and a tarball on a webserver: Netscape is essentially gone; VA --- the single largest Dot Com IPO --- is a shadow of its former self; LinuxCare became a proprietary software company.

If, as open source advocates would argue, the reason we're here is to build software more efficiently or at greater profit, we must also advocate for proprietary development methodologies in areas where evidence seems to show that they are more effective. Where are these advocates? Where are the open source advocates applauding LinuxCare for saving themselves by abandoning FLOSS. Don Marti has observed that this doesn't seem to be what is going on:

Do people really spend their weekends helping annoying new people install free software because it has a more efficient development methodology? Of course not. If it were only about efficiency, hobbyists would volunteer to replace the old ballasts in companies' fluorescent lights.

Of course, Marti is right. The reason that hundreds of thousands have spent their time assisting FLOSS efforts has less to do with a passion for efficiency and more to do with a set of implicit principles.

Humans are driven to imagine worlds that they would want to live in. For a growing group of people, that's a world where software can be used, shared, and collaborated without restrictions or discrimination. We may think of this in ethical terms, in terms of an attitude toward innovation, or as a set of political or economic positions. But we should realize that these are, ultimately, principled stands.

And if we are taking principled positions, it is in the long-term interests of both our cause and our credibility to frame our arguments and our advocacy in those terms. We can use empirical evidence to help bolster our arguments but we should be careful to not confuse these empirical claims with the principles themselves. They can, and sometimes will, be proven wrong.

By honestly highlighting our principles and not shying away from explicit Utopianism, we can return to questions of efficiency as means toward achieving our principled ends. Approached from this angle, we need not seek to explain why FLOSS is better than proprietary software --- which it may or may not be at any given point in time and for any given project --- and can instead ask how we can make it better.

Humans are creative, innovative problem solvers. We set goals and devise social structures and technologies to achieve them. The fact that we have created socio-technical means of creating better software through free ways in so many areas is a reflection of this ingenuity applied toward principles at the heart of FLOSS. We would be well served to remember that this is how FLOSS will win, not why.


Comments, posted 14 Jul 2009 at 17:27 UTC by mako » (Master)

If you want to leave a comment and you can do it here because you don't have an accredited Advogato acocunt, you can leave it on my blog where I have crossposted it.

Yup, though I'll tie it back to OSS, posted 15 Jul 2009 at 03:02 UTC by robla » (Master)

The thing that struck me when I first read the GNU Manifesto many many years ago is that:

  1. Yep, I buy it. Proprietary software does suck.
  2. It doesn't matter what I think. It won't take many people to buy into this to create a serious challenge to proprietary software.

Business people like to factor out philosophical calculations, which is why, on the surface, the OSS-style arguments are appealing. However, the problem is that you can't factor out the philosophical considerations of others in a fully-informed business decision. For example, if one wants to open a kosher deli, one would be well-advised not to serve bbq pork sandwiches, no matter how tasty they might be.

We do have to understand that people will be motivated by many of the OSS-style arguments though as well. While some of the arguments of efficiency made in the heady early days turned out to be overblown, it's getting tougher and tougher to argue that all of the FLOSS success stories are flukes. There has to be something to the methodology.

That said, purely as a mechanical process, OSS vs proprietary may be a wash. The performance difference seems to be the people-powered edge that the free software philosophy provides.

Also depends on where are you talking., posted 15 Jul 2009 at 06:51 UTC by audriusa » (Journeyer)

Well, refusing to use Free Software just because it runs faster and is more reliable does not coincide with my philosophy as well. An I like my company using it at least for that reason because it is convenient to run the same OS at work and at home.

Re: Also depends on where are you talking, posted 15 Jul 2009 at 15:11 UTC by mako » (Master)

I'm certainly not arguing that would should refuse to use free software because it's better. If free software runs better, that's icing on the cake for anyone who has taken a principled stance.

After all, this is an article about advocacy. If free software does work better than proprietary software, the need for advocates will be much reduced.

integrating with future competition, posted 13 Aug 2009 at 14:09 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

I am reading 'Integrating with future competition' . Deliberation in the comments is persuasive.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

X
Share this page