Freedom and Power

I think (but it's just an idea) that the choice of GNU General Public License by default is good.

It's like democracy and the exclusion of any (extreme-right) political parties that want to break the democracy by using the democracy itself.

That's a difficult choice but that's a issue in multiple free democrat countries and free software is a democracy.

no ?

It is short-sighted because it fails to take into account the freedom of the end-user to weigh risks and benefits, and to choose Proprietary or Free software.

This is the same kind of thing about which Jean-Jacques Rousseau writes in his "Social Contract". People don't have a choice between free and proprietary, just like people can't transfer their freedom to a sovereign, so that the sovereign would maintain order in the society. People are born free, and because of their rationality, they simply cannot sell their freedom at any price.

Of course, if you don't think that using proprietary software is submitting to an evil lord, it is only reasonable to think that choosing between free and proprietary is a freedom. Then it's no longer philosophical, but only requires some examination of the facts. I think the business practices of proprietary software makers are very similar to the actions of historical despots, so I think that Kuhn and Stallman are correct. But this is only an opinion based on my experiences.

the GPL is a grant of, or extension to, copyright. it is NOT a software license.

[in fact, it is a viral agent - a recursive and self-sustaining meme. example: the new testament is also a self-sustaining meme: it maintains itself by protecting its hosts - people who subscribe to The Word and The Procedures (10 Commandments etc.) contained therein].

therefore, it is a TOTALLY different ballgame. people advocating viral copyright extensions can therefore quite happily go on about software licenses, a bit like how goats can talk about sheep eating all their grass...

baaaaaaah ;)

You say that demanding software licenses always to respect the freedom of users is short-sighted because it fails to take into account the freedom of the end-user to weigh risks and benefits. And you are partly right. If software producing resources were not so (artificially) scarce.

But we gave programmers this power in the first place by making software programs copyrighted works. Which made something that is naturally available and distributable now a scarce product. We as a society gave very much powers in the hands of the lucky few that understand software/programming. It is not that strange to demand some of that power back by stating that software licenses have to respect the freedom of the end-user.

Note that the article also doesn't dictate that the only valid license is the GPL. It says that there are criteria for Free Software that specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a community. They then argue that if you believe that you as a programmer and as a user value these freedoms then the GPL gives you and your users explicitly those freedoms.

I hope that part of the problem will go away when we have more people that can make software. We will have to make sure that if software is law (power) that we educate people and give them the possibility to have some of that power.

I agree, insofar as the GPL does not dictate the terms of first use by an end-user. However, (a) it's called the General Public License, and (b) it does dictate terms under which the end-user may have permission to use the software revoked (i.e. an attempt to revoke that same permission for others).

Gus3,

Most users of free software take the freedom for granted. I am glad you have tried to understand what Stallman and Kuhn stated in their article, and figure out how you feel about it. It comes down to what these opinions of advocates turn out to mean to everyone, i.e., one's own opinions.

The GNU GPL2 license stands out from many other similar licenses, in one form. It protects freedom. This is why the GNU GPL2 license is misunderstood to be a "viral license" sometimes.

Plain freedom alone is not sufficient. It does not mean anything, unless that freedom is protected properly. This is true in non-software contexts as well. As long as end-users/reusing-developers do not have the power to modify the terms and conditions which protect this freedom under which the software was initially made available to them, the software remains free. Other licenses, such as the BSD license, initially provide freedom, but are unable to ensure its protection when the software changes hands.

Freedom Zero for me is to offer the fruit of your work on the terms that work for you. I think that is what is absolutely critical here. Let there be competition in the marketplace; that is the answer. Let people use whatever license they choose and if their customers don't like it they will have other choices.

This is a quote from Tim's article to which Stallman and Kuhn's article appears to be a reply. I have read Eric S. Raymond's article-in-reply, and was unable to follow it. Anyway, the above paragraph would seem to be entirely correct for an initial developer of software. She/he should have the power to choose whatever software license she/he wants to. You should note that Stallman, Kuhn, and GNU and the FSF are all advocates of free software. They will on any day advocate that all software should be distributed under a license granting freedom, which in their eyes, is the GNU GPL2. There is nothing new in the following statement (taken from their article):

However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write".

But do note the reason why the phrase is quoted.

We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.

This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.

An initial developer has the power to administer how the level of freedom she/he grants for a user/reusing-developer of her/his software is protected during the lifetime of its use. The initial software developer may choose to not provide any freedom at all with her/his power. Or the initial developer may choose to provide the same level of freedom she/he has. The initial developer may also have the power to place this power into the hands of users/reusing-developers. A variety of software licenses have sprung up to match these various situations. A license which puts a situation of power into the hands of end-users/reusing-developers (and hence an opportunity for mis-use of that power) is the BSD license. A license which keeps power with the initial developer, but provides the same level of freedom of use as the initial developer for end-users/reusing-developers is the GNU GPL2 license. A license which keeps power with the initial developer, and also denies the same levels of freedom of use as the initial developer for the end-user/reusing-developer is any closed-source license and other proprietary licenses. There are licenses on opensource.org which do not grant the same level of freedom of use the initial developer has, to the end-user/reusing-developer. There is a list of free and non-free software licenses where one can learn the differences.

I dislike how Stallman is critisized by a lot of people these days, as a person who wants power. If it is power he wants, he asks for it to protect the freedom he has worked for ensuring for everone for a large part of his life.

Mukund

I can't really take any other interpretation of your article. You attribute arguments to Kuhn and Stallman which they never made. Let me site some examples:

It is self-contradictory because it is an attempt to remove the choice of license from developers and boards of directors. By dictating that the only valid license is the GPL, Kuhn and Stallman are attempting to exercise their own power over other developers.

Kuhn and Stallman did not dictate any such thing. Their argument was developers should not have the freedom to choose any licence. A licence is just a set of rules. In proprietary licences these rules have the effect of exerting power over the user by denying them certain freedoms.

Finally, Kuhn and Stallman treat their ideas of freedom and power as mutually exclusive.

Again, no such treatment was given. Kuhn and Stallman instead show a rather obvious relationship. If you give certain group additional power this takes freedom away from another group. In this case the proprietary deveoper's "freedom" of licence choice is actually power over the users of it's software, which in turn denys the users certain freedoms.

Otherwise your arguments don't really connect to the original article.

It is short-sighted because it fails to take into account the freedom of the end-user to weigh risks and benefits, and to choose Proprietary or Free software. If the only choices were Proprietary or Nothing, this argument might be more cohesive; but, with the publicity around the Free Unices, a real choice for the end-user goes deeper into the public awareness every day. This choice, of whether and where to spend resources, is totally independent of the license chosen by developers and boards of directors. Therefore, choosing a software license is not an exercise of power over end-users.

To force you to give it away is an exercise of power

Who is forcing you to give away your software?

From the original Kuhn/Stallman article:

Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you.

OK, perhaps my use of the term " mutually exclusive" was inappropriate. The term "contradictory" or "in opposition" might be better. But I don't believe that affects the point of my final paragraph.

Also from the original article:

We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use...

Since they reject the notion that choosing a software license for a program is an act of freedom, then I believe they are opposing that choice. They are placing the choice of the end-user over the choice of the original creator, without the creator's consent; this is an act of power, as they have defined it, and argue against. If they succeed in removing my option to place the software under a proprietary license, then two choices remain: hide it away, or let the end-users dictate the terms of usage.

i believe that we are all dreaming of a pure of open source world, but are we there yet? we're still stuck in this imperfect world...

i wish to contribute my works to the open source community, because i believe in open source. i want to ensure that the open source community (and anyone else) has the freedom to use/modify/distribute my works, and maintain the freedom, no matter what happen. furthermore, i don't wish to see someone take the codes i give to our community and make money out of them without granting the end users the same freedom. the GNU GPL meets all those little wishes inside me, therefore i have most of my codes under it.

many open source developers have more or less the same thinking, so the GPL is in fact a gift by FSF to all of us. we get a nice, detail license scheme that meets our needs for free, and it's there whenever we wish to use it. imagine if every one of us need to draft a license for our own codes. it's a variant of "re-using codes", and i've always been grateful about this.

sometimes, our works have different licensing needs. there isn't a single shoe to fit everybody's foot, so there isn't a single license to fit the needs of every software. other licenses (even the proprietary ones) has their values of existent. we'll all need them, someday, in some situations, tho' we all hope that we don't.

yes, i have to agree that the FSF don't advocate "the freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". because that's what the mankind advocate, the right over our own works. however, as we're more and more dependent on computers and software, it's not surprising if one day we reach such a situation where by not making a software open source, we might hurt the whole society severely. that will be the time when we need to have laws to make all software open source. (speeding on the road isn't a problem 300 years ago, remember?)

it's true that the current copyright laws give (almost) total power to the programmers, but we are exercising this power to put our codes under the GPL (or any other open source license), aren't we?

Open source can lead to raised standards by creating a knowledge base and serve as an excellent educational tool. Open source is collaborative in contrast to propriety development, which tends to be highly competitive in nature. The fact of the matter is that developers like to work on and learn about things that interest them.

Open source is voluntary and hence communal and therefor in theory tends to bring together like-minded groups of people. Programming as a profession has its fair share of cliques. I dislike the arrogant and condescending attitude of certain groups of OSS core developers.

Most computing researchers and academics that I know are big headed and seem to thing that there something special. These people really do need to come down of their high horse. The real engine in my opinion behind free software development is the enthusiast and students. I hold little regard for left wing politicians who like to imagine themselves to be technologists, using computing as a platform to disseminate their own ideologies.

There is nothing wrong with propriety software if you don't like you don't have to buy it. Open source really has done some degree of damage to some areas of propriety development. Simply charging a small distribution fee and providing support and consultant services for an OSS product does not provide for a sufficient level of market protection. This only plays straight in to the hands of the cone makers who will fork your code.

I personally write tutorials and give as much code as I can away under the MIT licence and to tell you the truth I don't really care where it ends up. But at the same time after studying computing for several years. I would like to be still able to make a decent and preferably as secure living as possible thank you very much. The blue chips wish to exploit OSS in order to developer core structures, which they can wrap their own propriety plugins around.

I do agree with some of the things that Stallman writes about but lets face it on balance he's not exactly living in the really world nor very credible due to his political beliefs. Life isn't just about doing what ever you like it's, as much about doing things that you don't like. Something tells me that this guy is sitting on a gold brick and just has too much time on his hands.

Gregory

The unapparent connection is more powerful than the apparent one. - Hippolytus

FSF clearly explains that protecting the freedom of developers and users is necessary... also FreeDevelopers.net

if you don't believe this, no problem : use an "open" license (artistic/BSD/LGPL... MIT/X?) which allows your work to be used in any way at all, including against you, or against others, but I guess it is a freedom that's worth protecting

in other words: no, I would not support a law requiring software works to be GPL'd, or any other indiscriminant copyright mandates for that matter (not tied to specific works, like DMCA/SSSCA)

however, I feel it is entirely hypocritical to complain about the copyright options exercised by other authors - that being the only crime rms has committed, in my opinion, which is a minor issue of proselytizing I do not believe justifies the reaction to his benevolent dictatorship

distribution and hierarchy are inextricably linked

It's really rather simple.

The FSF is blurring the distinction between the freedom to offer your goods and services on whatever terms the market will bear with the power of a monopoly to offer their goods and services at whatever terms they desire.

do not criticize the choices others make for their own works, as long as copyright still exists

copyright has long outlived its right to exist, that's the whole point of copyleft

patent law is also in serious need of examination (read: removal)

Perhaps this serves as a reminder to how vauge the term 'free' is. Free market is the term used to desribe our present day economy. However in what ways is it free? To whom does it offer freedom?

Perhaps it best clarify what you mean by freedom. When RMS discusses freedom, there is a very moral sense attached to it. Freedom insofar as this freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others. When others discuss freedom, it seems to take on the meaning "without restraint", for whatever they happen to be discussing.

Without a moral sense the freedom of people to own slaves is given the same weight as the freedom of speech. In this way the artical by Kuhn and Stallman has a clarifying effect, rather than a bluring one. To show what some consider freedom is actually power over others.

There is a contradiction in the article though, one that I didn't initially realize. While proprietary licences are indeed an act of power, the same is true of the GPL. The GPL does not grant total freedom, and what restrictions is does have are enforced by copyright and hence by the state. The effect however is not so great upon the user, and seems more an attack on copyright law itself. In effect the GPL says if copyright defends the power of proprietary software, we will use it to defend the freedoms of users.

As it has been said, in order to protect, you have to give up some of your Freedom. A very good example of this is what has happened in the US after Sept 11th. The government claim that they are making things safer when really all they are doing is restricting our Freedoms. They say they need extra power to snoop on us to protect us from terrorist, but intentionally forget to include that's all they will use that data.

They increase security at the airports for nothing. They still server (and give you) aluminum cans with your drinks. When was the last time you cut yourself on a cheap PC case? They cry about security and all they do is take away our Freedom of travel and choice.

It is our choice to choose how much Freedom we want to give up, and how much Freedom we want to protect. I think many people feel that the GPL takes away too much freedom to protect too little.

Don't forget the most secure computer is one that isn't on, but you loose the fredom to use it by protecting it.

protecting the right to share is the purpose of the GPL

forcing others to share is the end result, it is true, but I see nothing wrong with that - it's only a tactic used to combat forcing others NOT to share

piracy does not exist in the land of free software

this is the way good combats evil; by balancing, consuming, limiting, meeting at the point of decision time and again for the purpose of truth, knowledge and understanding

always parry, never strike

Mark

Since you seem to like philosophy some Aristotle for you:

``The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another's, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another's man who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor.

But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?

There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.''

``No one, when men have all things in common, will any longer set an example of liberality or do any liberal action; for liberality consists in the use which is made of property.

Such legislation may have a specious appearance of benevolence; men readily listen to it, and are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody's friend, especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property.

These evils, however, are due to a very different cause the wickedness of human nature. Indeed, we see that there is much more quarrelling among those who have all things in common, though there are not many of them when compared with the vast numbers who have private property.''

We as a society gave very much powers in the hands of the lucky few that understand software/programming. It is not that strange to demand some of that power back by stating that software licenses have to respect the freedom of the end-user.

If you think that those of us among the "lucky few" will continue writing software if we're forced to give it away, you're in for a shock. First, to say that I'm "lucky" because I know how to write software is a bunch of crap. It has very little to do with luck. It has much more to do with the effort that we expend studying theory, languages, design, management, and engineering principles. Second, I don't have a deep background in formal economic theory, but it seems to me that if you have a resource that is already scarce, you don't want to give it away.

I do, on the other hand, feel that cppyright periods are far too long. 10 years for a software product is about all that is necessary to recoup an investment and provide funds and incentive for further development and innovation, which is what copyright is all about: providing an incentive. If you take that incentive away, your flow of software will slow to a trickle or dry up completely.

Why should I trust the FSF to maintain the integrity of the GPL? They are too radical for me.

wicked license! i _like_ that one. hey, let's take over control of the FSF, bring out version 3 of the GPL which hands over control of all software to the corporates who'd love to see the "free" in software be bought :)

... but seriously: the advocates of "free" are tied to their responsibility, and are the weak link in the chain to guaranteeing the freedom of software licensed under the GPL. i'm not so sure that they will be comfortable with such responsibility - and risk!

licenses are necessarily dynamic things... right now the line is drawn for code integration at the network : it's ok to run distributed services across the proprietary/free boundary, but it's not ok to integrate code at runtime (on the same machine) if the software is "free" from restrictive, proprietary licensing

what are you going to do if agents, bots, or whatever automated traffic bogs down your distributed services to the point you can't maintain them - and they're not even real users, just one's not in control of their systems enough to change defaults... block their traffic?

fortunately this temptation has only occurred (to my knowledge) and been applied by the proprietary camp, qith quite a strong chant of "openness" from Opera users across the pond - and that with a restrictive license

taking down the services may be appropriate in some cases, but I'd like to think there are some educational reasons it will be impossible in some, and a complete last resort due to undesirability in many