4 ms·

essentially brilliant. I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source s

by sprafa 10y ago

essentially brilliant. I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code. That is, the main issue with making open-source software is that anyone can copy it, thus placing the value of your software at 0. But if DRM effectively put a a stop to this, by not allowing you to run unlicensed code, you could distribute open-source as much as you'd like, safe in the knowledge that while people could emulate your application, they wouldn't be able to copy your code directly. My view on this is increasingly that software should be forced to be open-source and modifiable by the (individual) user. But it should not allow the user to run the code without the developer/owner authorization. The developer also should not be allowed to stop users from sharing modifications amongst themselves, as long as they were paying for the original code, so as to stop him from using it as a weapon agaisnt users who modify it and wish to share their mods. Any other defence of free software is basically an attack on capitalism itself. Regardless of your opinion on capitalism, this is too radical a change for most people.

SwellJoe 10y ago
That is, the main issue with making open-source software is that anyone can copy it, thus placing the value of your software at 0. But if DRM effectively put a a stop to this, by not allowing you to run unlicensed code, you could distribute open-source as much as you'd like, safe in the knowledge that while people could emulate your application, they wouldn't be able to copy your code directly. Hmmm...That's not the lesson I took away from this article, at all. There are only three mentions of DRM in the article, and I don't see any suggestion that the author endorses DRM be used in this way.
throwaway729 10y ago
Patents were intended (in part) to have this sort of effect -- free the knowledge while still allowing the creator to profit. It's the kind of thing that makes sense but is incredibly hard to get right technically or politically.
- disgruntledphd2 10y ago
  If patents for software required a copy of the source to be available, then I think we'd be there already.
dTal 10y ago
>My view on this is increasingly that software should be forced to be open-source and modifiable by the (individual) user. But it should not allow the user to run the code without the developer/owner authorization. How can you stop someone from running code they have access to? If I write a new program but use routines from yours, who is the "developer/owner"? I can't picture this scheme.
- sprafa 10y ago
  You can't run someone else's code, unless you have paid them first. And no one you share the code to can do it either, unless they paid the original author of the code.
  - schoen 10y ago
    I think the parent's question is not about the policy matter but more like "how could this kind of DRM work?" (technically).
krapp 10y ago
Stallman isn't concerned with open source code, but with free software. The difference being a moral philosophical framework that makes DRM unacceptable in any form, because it limits the ways in which the user can modify and redistribute software. No one owns software under the free software philosophy, not even the original creators - code belongs equally to everyone. Since no one owns the code, no one has the right to make demands or to restrict another person's use of the code. I don't think this is anti-capitalist, so much as capital agnostic. Whether you can or can't make money with free software isn't relevant, all that matters is that the users' freedom is respected. Within that framework you're free to make as much money as you want with the code that you write... and so is everyone else.
- sprafa 10y ago
  We live under a capitalist system that is driven by the profit motive, and the idea that you can have an "agnostic" system for software, separate from the rest of society, seems like a fantasy to me. Anything that can't be sucessfully integrated by capitalism is fought agaisnt by the system itself, much like an organism defending itself agaisnt a virus. This would deweaponize the whole issue. If you were to legislate that the user can modify the software, but not redistribute it (at least not unless he shut off his own DRM keys and gave it to someone else, preventing duplication) you would allow for the profit motive AND open-source, which would make it work for everyone.
  - vinceguidry 10y ago
    That agnostic system for software that you think is a fantasy already exists, it was created and is managed by the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, both organizations that Stallman started. Of course, it's not mainstream, but it's definitely not a fantasy. Capitalism isn't the monolithic agency you seem to think it is. There's room for both approaches under the umbrella of capitalism. Stallman is not opposed to the profit motive. He is perfectly fine with selling software. He just wants you to sell free software. As it is right now, free software competes with proprietary software in the marketplace. Depending on how you look at it, both approaches can be winning. There is far more free software in use today than there is proprietary software. But of course most of the money is made with proprietary systems. Stallman is smart and he probably has a better grasp of the realities of the software world than both you or me. He's playing a long game. When he says you should give up your Facebook account, he doesn't really believe you're going to just go and do it. He's giving you a glimpse of a better world, sharing his vision of what could be. This approach has proven extremely successful. He has said that he feels like he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He just never thought he would get this far. He never thought his ideas could gain so much traction.
michaelmrose 10y ago
Keep in mind that access to the source code not only to your software but the OS itself would mean the ability to modify or remove any locks you imagine are supposed to keep people from running unlicensed code. Given the way a lot of hardware works it probably requires licensing hardware and drivers as well lest someone sell dongles that interfere with the operation of the OS in such a way as to compromise its checks on the users freedom. Thus the situation you imagine requires that the manufacturer only allow specifically state or corporate sanctioned hardware/software to run after all how do you tell the difference between random free software off the net and non free software that has had its license and identifying information stripped. Of course now that we have all this great control over what OS/software you are allowed to run we can use our newfound control over the primary tool for communication, commerce, and culture for the entire human race to exercise any sort of control we want. So all we have to do is implement 1984 and all the tools and systems required to enslave the human race so software makers a truly microscopic portion of the human race can make a few more pennies and thus be inspired to share with us the blueprints for some of our toys. If this seems sarcastic maybe it is but you truly can't implement an effective way to give the user the source without also providing the freedom to use the software without paying without effectively taking away ownership of the device from the user. What you are proposing is a terrible idea and you and those like you are truly a threat to the future of the human race. I hope you think through this more fully.
cbdfghh 10y ago
>I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code. That's a feature, not a bug. He's not interested in creating a "commons" for companies. He's interested in having his code help users, and create an incentive for companies to create code which will help users. If you look at it from that perspective, with DRM you might as well be closed source. ----------- Oh. And DRM encumbered code is arguably closed source. Imagine a license - You can copy and distribute source, compile source, but not use your compiled binaries. That wouldn't fit either the OSS or FSF definition of Open Source/Free Software. But that's what DRM does. It effectively says that you cannot run this software on your devise.
- sprafa 10y ago
  No it wouldn't fit their definition. Take into account that this is a legislative or a policy position Id like to see. I'm not defending this as a way of helping closed source; I'm thinking of it as a way to put an end to the open-source debate. That idea is you would by law be forced to to distribute open-source software that's modifiable by the user. To accommodate for profit, DRM would be allowed

by sprafa 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

That is, the main issue with making open-source software is that anyone can copy it, thus placing the value of your software at 0. But if DRM effectively put a a stop to this, by not allowing you to run unlicensed code, you could distribute open-source as much as you'd like, safe in the knowledge that while people could emulate your application, they wouldn't be able to copy your code directly. Hmmm...That's not the lesson I took away from this article, at all. There are only three mentions of DRM in the article, and I don't see any suggestion that the author endorses DRM be used in this way.

throwaway729 10y ago

Patents were intended (in part) to have this sort of effect -- free the knowledge while still allowing the creator to profit. It's the kind of thing that makes sense but is incredibly hard to get right technically or politically.

disgruntledphd2 10y ago
If patents for software required a copy of the source to be available, then I think we'd be there already.

dTal 10y ago

>My view on this is increasingly that software should be forced to be open-source and modifiable by the (individual) user. But it should not allow the user to run the code without the developer/owner authorization. How can you stop someone from running code they have access to? If I write a new program but use routines from yours, who is the "developer/owner"? I can't picture this scheme.

sprafa 10y ago
You can't run someone else's code, unless you have paid them first. And no one you share the code to can do it either, unless they paid the original author of the code.
- schoen 10y ago
  I think the parent's question is not about the policy matter but more like "how could this kind of DRM work?" (technically).

krapp 10y ago

Stallman isn't concerned with open source code, but with free software. The difference being a moral philosophical framework that makes DRM unacceptable in any form, because it limits the ways in which the user can modify and redistribute software. No one owns software under the free software philosophy, not even the original creators - code belongs equally to everyone. Since no one owns the code, no one has the right to make demands or to restrict another person's use of the code. I don't think this is anti-capitalist, so much as capital agnostic. Whether you can or can't make money with free software isn't relevant, all that matters is that the users' freedom is respected. Within that framework you're free to make as much money as you want with the code that you write... and so is everyone else.

sprafa 10y ago
We live under a capitalist system that is driven by the profit motive, and the idea that you can have an "agnostic" system for software, separate from the rest of society, seems like a fantasy to me. Anything that can't be sucessfully integrated by capitalism is fought agaisnt by the system itself, much like an organism defending itself agaisnt a virus. This would deweaponize the whole issue. If you were to legislate that the user can modify the software, but not redistribute it (at least not unless he shut off his own DRM keys and gave it to someone else, preventing duplication) you would allow for the profit motive AND open-source, which would make it work for everyone.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  That agnostic system for software that you think is a fantasy already exists, it was created and is managed by the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, both organizations that Stallman started. Of course, it's not mainstream, but it's definitely not a fantasy. Capitalism isn't the monolithic agency you seem to think it is. There's room for both approaches under the umbrella of capitalism. Stallman is not opposed to the profit motive. He is perfectly fine with selling software. He just wants you to sell free software. As it is right now, free software competes with proprietary software in the marketplace. Depending on how you look at it, both approaches can be winning. There is far more free software in use today than there is proprietary software. But of course most of the money is made with proprietary systems. Stallman is smart and he probably has a better grasp of the realities of the software world than both you or me. He's playing a long game. When he says you should give up your Facebook account, he doesn't really believe you're going to just go and do it. He's giving you a glimpse of a better world, sharing his vision of what could be. This approach has proven extremely successful. He has said that he feels like he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He just never thought he would get this far. He never thought his ideas could gain so much traction.

michaelmrose 10y ago

Keep in mind that access to the source code not only to your software but the OS itself would mean the ability to modify or remove any locks you imagine are supposed to keep people from running unlicensed code. Given the way a lot of hardware works it probably requires licensing hardware and drivers as well lest someone sell dongles that interfere with the operation of the OS in such a way as to compromise its checks on the users freedom. Thus the situation you imagine requires that the manufacturer only allow specifically state or corporate sanctioned hardware/software to run after all how do you tell the difference between random free software off the net and non free software that has had its license and identifying information stripped. Of course now that we have all this great control over what OS/software you are allowed to run we can use our newfound control over the primary tool for communication, commerce, and culture for the entire human race to exercise any sort of control we want. So all we have to do is implement 1984 and all the tools and systems required to enslave the human race so software makers a truly microscopic portion of the human race can make a few more pennies and thus be inspired to share with us the blueprints for some of our toys. If this seems sarcastic maybe it is but you truly can't implement an effective way to give the user the source without also providing the freedom to use the software without paying without effectively taking away ownership of the device from the user. What you are proposing is a terrible idea and you and those like you are truly a threat to the future of the human race. I hope you think through this more fully.

cbdfghh 10y ago

>I've been thinking more and more about how Stallman has blocked perhaps the only effective way to make companies make more open-source software: allow DRM to work properly with open-source code. That's a feature, not a bug. He's not interested in creating a "commons" for companies. He's interested in having his code help users, and create an incentive for companies to create code which will help users. If you look at it from that perspective, with DRM you might as well be closed source. ----------- Oh. And DRM encumbered code is arguably closed source. Imagine a license - You can copy and distribute source, compile source, but not use your compiled binaries. That wouldn't fit either the OSS or FSF definition of Open Source/Free Software. But that's what DRM does. It effectively says that you cannot run this software on your devise.

sprafa 10y ago
No it wouldn't fit their definition. Take into account that this is a legislative or a policy position Id like to see. I'm not defending this as a way of helping closed source; I'm thinking of it as a way to put an end to the open-source debate. That idea is you would by law be forced to to distribute open-source software that's modifiable by the user. To accommodate for profit, DRM would be allowed