OSDev.org

I read a post, titled, Insane Ramblings of an Open Source Activist (http://www.osdev.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14075), and thought I'd write this up, since clearly the poster didn't understand the concept of Free Software vs Open Source.
I like Free Software, but not entirely becuase it works better. Yes, I think Linux is a better OS than Windows, but that's not the whole reason I use it. I'll outline why I like free software.

1. I'm paranoid and don't trust big corporations like MS.
2. I believe all information should be free.
3. (THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT) Free Software is a step towards an anarchist society. Free Software is donated to the good of everyone. I see that as a cause worth supporting. To me, Free Software, or Open Source, isn't a business model which produces a better product, but a philosophy about making the world better and respecting others freedom.

Proprietary software attempts to control you, and control information. This is fundamentally wrong! I refuse to let a big company bully me and tell me what I can and can't do. Suck it microsoft!!!!!!!!

However, I'm not a militant who thinks that all proprietary software is "evil" or "immoral". People have the right to license their code however they want, I just won't use it. People have the choice to use proprietary software or free software. I chose free software. What people don't realize is that the GPL isn't trying to make all software free (the existance of the LGPL is proof), but just protect the freedom of the software licensed under it.

Yep, the FSF propaganda in their essence.

Nothing against you, it's easy to fall for it, FSF just started getting on my nerves quite some time ago, so I have to...

<rant>

1) I don't want an "anarchist society", not as you meant it, and especially not in the true meaning of the word. (And I am quite sure, neither would you.)

2) "Information should be free" - I agree with that in the Wikipedia sense of the word. But I don't see software as (purely) information, I consider it a result of engineering, craft, and art. As such, it's great if the engineer / craftsman / artist donates it to the public to use, no mistake, but I fail to see anything negative in someone wanting some kind of reward, be it substantial or in token.

3) While I'm not happy about big monopolists either, what this kind of argumentation keeps forgetting about is that there is a vast majority of medium, small, tiny, and one-man projects and businesses out there. Yes, I know the FSF keeps telling you about "you could provide support for payment", "you could sell documentation" or stuff like that, but that still means that I have a daytime job (support, documentation), with every hour spend coding meaning an hour not spend making a living. Besides, I prefer my software to be intuitive enough not to require support, with documentation already included.

4) I really like that mantra about the GPL "protecting the freedom of the code". BS, if you ask me. "Freedom" includes being able to use the code in whatever context you like, including it becoming part of a greater work for which you still have the freedom to license it as you want, including commercial and public domain. The GPL does not give you this freedom, and indeed the FSF goes to great length to ensure that.

Take Linux drivers, for example. Hell yeah, here is all that "free" information about how to use all that hardware out there. Problem is, even if you do adapt your kernel to suit Linux driver modules, you'd have to keep playing catch-up because they keep changing the interface API for claims of "efficiency", and you would have to put your kernel under the GPL, good-bye revenue.

Which means that Linux didn't step up to the plate to make the OS landscape "free", it simply took a piece from the cake and made damn sure that you stay at the bottom and don't benefit from it.

Differerent approach, same ****. The difference is that they actually managed to make the masses believe their propaganda, better yet, spreading it like a gospel. I have yet to see any discussion like this one actually started by someone not advocating "free software".

</rant>

I believe in free software, however I also believe in paying for proprietary software if it's worth it..

Think of a computer game company for example. I doubt these companies will be able to be producing games as fast as they are without some form of paying their employees - in 'money' - so they can make a living on developing these games.

I believe ID Software is on to something when they release the source code for the games (but not game assets required to play) freely. It's an example of proprietary open source software.

btw.. I don't want anarchism.. A world without governments? So crime everywhere? Who will build city infrastructures? Who will fund huge space exploration projects?

btw (2nd).. I remember people who were opposed to standards.. I think standards are a good thing. Could you imagine computers without any sort of text standard (ASCII), not VGA or VESA standard, not even a PCI standard?

Am I actually getting to something? I don't know.. I think I'm just rambling

Who would pay for the internet? Or the education that allows us to actually spend time on such idle thoughts, instead of laboring 14+ hours a day at someone's production plant?

I don't think this is fair. In my post I made assumptions.

I like being able to download the source of a program if I feel like it, but I would prefer to download a binary first, so I can figure out if I like the program or not.

You got that right. I like spending time on my idle thoughts.

The key disagreement seems to be "striving towards an anarchist society".

The FSF fits in with my ideals, not the otherway around. As an Anarchist, when I started programming, and learned about the GPL, it seemed very appealing. "A license which inhibits intellectual property laws... thats right up my ally!".

I do want an anarchist society... any day of the week. Several small scale anarchist communes have been sucessfully self-sufficient and prosperous.


You have to look at the FSF long term goals...


The current business model is dying. Look at how quickly google is surpassing companies like MS who are quickly becoming dinosaurs in the feild. Software is becoming a service (e.g. web apps), not property. I'd get used to the idea.



But doesn't licensing your code with a proprietary license (arguably restrict the rights of your users?

I have to agree and disagree a bit here. What you say is basically the beleif behind the BSD licenses. I have no problem with this.

However, I don't advocate property of any kind. Obviously, possesion implies it, but not in a wierd abstract way, like intellectual property. Sure, people can license their code how they like, its their right; if somone wants to use the BSD license, or a proprietary license, go ahead.


I disagree. Everyone can benefit from it, that's the whole idea. Anyone can use the code, modify it and contribute to it for free.

In the case of the GPL it does not inhibit intellectual property laws, but uses intellectual property laws. The equivalent of no intellectual property laws would not be the GPL, since you would not be required to have the source accompanied or be accessible to users of the software at question with out the laws. With out this we would have trade secrets and that is about the same situation you are in now trying to figure out how stuff works when it is a proprietary X.

Okay. Most people (might) be (generally) divided over:

• Economic theory typically suggests that a free market with no exclusive rights will lead to too little production of intellectual works relative to an efficient outcome.
• use of the best available technique for a given task or the creation of a new derived work is prevented. Equally important, granting monopoly rights on production introduces a deadweight loss into the economy, and incentivizes rent seeking behavior.

Now. Imagine that intellectual property laws are abolished in an instant. What is going to be the first reaction? .. A quick and frantic grab and pull technique to remove all information relevant (connected directly or indirectly) to potential money making algorithms, documents, designs, and specifications. Anything that could give another company or individual a clue as to how something works or operates will attempt to vanish.

The game of figuring out how something works will be more along the lines of secret informers and reverse engineering. Company will change specifications and designs in order to keep you from figuring out how they work from generation to generation. A company will treat aspects of this invention or design as if it was the entropy in a cryptographic equation which is bad in my opinion.

And, a major reason for why is called global digital communications. Where information can spread faster than you can physically move to stop it. I think the world of innovation would become a secretive and invitation only place.

-- Five years later a organization will form that will attempt to preach about how everyone should help support them to make all information free for anyone to use. They might even talk about the days of having intellectual property, the GPL, and world wide open specifications and designs. People will join and start reverse engineering and breaking the cryptic black box ciphers of devices and technologies while placing this information in a public database of sorts. Unfortunately it will not help. These same individuals who contribute to this open collaboration type organization will turn their backs after realizing a new innovation apart from others knowledge and years from that day the organization will have to reverse engineer that.

So a constant cycle of reverse engineering spawning innovation with secretive designs versus todays world of innovation spawning innovation.

If I am not mistaken a stacking of a patent can occur such that if you patent something that uses another patent then you effectively lock the design you patented, and if the design you locked is worth something eventually this lock will become broken by commerce versus a secretive world where it would be hard to get a idea of something new by looking at something else because it is so secretive you can hardly find any information.

And this is all I am going to say because I have a tendency to argue past the point of sanity.

It uses intellectual property laws to restrict intellectual property. It effectively removes ownership of anykind from the code.


How is this different from the way things are now... except these "clues" are protected by fascist's laws.


Once again, this is the way things are now. Ex. ReactOS.


WTF?! I think I see what your getting at... "the restrictions of the GPL will become what they sought to destroy". I disagree, look at the large picture, the GPL is just the beginning.


The whole concept is based on consentual mutual sharing of knowledge/property. That's the principle behind anarchism. People certainly don't have to contribute (e.g. with secrets etc.), it's their right not to (unlike communism, where it is forced). However, I think the world would be a better place if people did, so I will



Peace

Sorry, I wasn't knocking you. You're post just made me think about the open source vs free software debate

Not true--when you release code under the GPL you still retain the actual copyright on it. The point is that each contributor owns their own contributions and all agree as owners of their respective pieces of code to share it under the terms of the GPL. I agree with you that it's the consensual sharing of information--but it's not just information, it's copyrighted intellectual property.

That's why when you want to change a codebase from the GPL to another license, you have to have the consent of every single contributor, which is why, for example, GNOME will never change licenses.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not saying I disagree with you that the sharing of source code is invaluable, it's just... not something that is always feasible, IMHO.

A PM with a heads up would have been nice