4 ms·

I've heard Stallman's arguments quite a bit and every time I hear them they don't ring entirely true. Pratically speaking, the freedoms granted by free softwar

I've heard Stallman's arguments quite a bit and every time I hear them they don't ring entirely true. Pratically speaking, the freedoms granted by free software are primarily meaningful to developers. If you can't modify the software (or have no concept of what source code is) these freedoms largely become meaningless. By the same token, if the source code is absolutely terrible the freedom to modify it is next to meaningless (I've had to deal with this issue a fair amount myself). There seem to be a couple of implicit arguments in this that I find interesting. First, that others aren't to be trusted. Second, that software is in no way an invention. Regarding the first, I think that for most people they have to rely on the developer of the software they use. If the developer decides to stop working on it they can get screwed. With open source software they may be able to find another developer, but then they are simply at the mercy of the other developer. Their lack of freedom isn't shaped by whether the software is open source or not, it's shaped by their lack of knowledge. Regarding the second, it seems that the argument for free software is an argument for free speech. This in essence means that software is exlusively a work of creativity (an thus copyrightable) and is not a work of invention (thus not patentable). I don't completely buy this argument. I think software is unique in that it has aspects of both creativity and invention. On one end of the spectrum _why would definitely epitomize the creative aspect of software. On the other end, software paired with super computers and embedded systems certainly come closer to machines. Overall, I these are tricky things to deal with. I don't think that all software should be out in the open, nor do I think that every piece of software should be cloesd away. I think the free software community needs to have a more nuanced view of the world and that having one will bear more fruit.

yason 16y ago
I'm a developer but I don't develop most of the programs that I use every day. I don't even read the source code of these programs. With regard to programs that I don't develop, I'm very much a user who enjoys that almost everything I use comes nicely in packages with Ubuntu. Almost. A few programs that I use need patches or modifications that aren't included in stock Ubuntu. Because I use free software the appropriate patches do exist and are available on which ever website their authors have published them. Or they circulate around on the internet. So, the features I desire suddenly become available via side-channel distribution. Often someone keeps prebuilt binaries of the software available with the same patches compiled in. Or they're available via alternate or backported APT repositories. In some cases, being a developer myself, I download the patches and dpkg-buildpackage them into binaries myself, but generally I not. If I had used proprietary software: - No third party could write patches for it; - I would have to stick with whatever the author decides to release; - I couldn't run old binaries if my OS went through some big upgrade and the author didn't bother to support a yet another binary; - I also wouldn't enjoy the vast repository of prepackaged and configured software that comes with Ubuntu: unless the author was agreeing to take part in an OS distribution, I would have to search, download, and install each program separately. Free software is much more than a single developer's ability to hack on other people's code. Free software is a whole ecosystem that benefits each participant. But since all software will come down to programming, that software ecosystem comes down to individual developers' ability to hack.
- mukyu 16y ago
  Just because you do not have the source code nor the right to distribute copies of software (i.e. it is proprietary) does not exclude you from any of the first three--it just makes it harder. Depending on where and when you live it may or may not be legal (Galoob v. Nintendo and 17 U.S.C. § 117 says yes, MDY v. Blizzard says no).
tome 16y ago
If you can't modify the software (or have no concept of what source code is) these freedoms largely become meaningless. I hear this again and again, and I think it's absolutely false. It's like saying "I don't have the time to shop around for the cheapest product, so a market economy is useless to me" In both cases the point is that even if you don't have the time or the knowledge someone else does, and only a small number of such people are required for the system to bring benefits to everyone.
- CitizenKane 16y ago
  There may be auxiliary benefits from the freedom that are granted to others. But we're not talking about those benefits, we're talking about the freedoms _you_ have. I'm not arguing that there aren't other benefits, I'm arguing that pratically speaking in both situations your freedom is primarily limited by your lack of knowledge of the situaiton, not by whether the software is proprietary or not.
  - tome 16y ago
    Oh come on. Many people I know don't vote because they think (correctly) the time they spend will be much better spent doing something else. That doesn't mean the freedom to elect a democratic government is not valuable to those people.

yason 16y ago

I'm a developer but I don't develop most of the programs that I use every day. I don't even read the source code of these programs. With regard to programs that I don't develop, I'm very much a user who enjoys that almost everything I use comes nicely in packages with Ubuntu. Almost. A few programs that I use need patches or modifications that aren't included in stock Ubuntu. Because I use free software the appropriate patches do exist and are available on which ever website their authors have published them. Or they circulate around on the internet. So, the features I desire suddenly become available via side-channel distribution. Often someone keeps prebuilt binaries of the software available with the same patches compiled in. Or they're available via alternate or backported APT repositories. In some cases, being a developer myself, I download the patches and dpkg-buildpackage them into binaries myself, but generally I not. If I had used proprietary software: - No third party could write patches for it; - I would have to stick with whatever the author decides to release; - I couldn't run old binaries if my OS went through some big upgrade and the author didn't bother to support a yet another binary; - I also wouldn't enjoy the vast repository of prepackaged and configured software that comes with Ubuntu: unless the author was agreeing to take part in an OS distribution, I would have to search, download, and install each program separately. Free software is much more than a single developer's ability to hack on other people's code. Free software is a whole ecosystem that benefits each participant. But since all software will come down to programming, that software ecosystem comes down to individual developers' ability to hack.

mukyu 16y ago
Just because you do not have the source code nor the right to distribute copies of software (i.e. it is proprietary) does not exclude you from any of the first three--it just makes it harder. Depending on where and when you live it may or may not be legal (Galoob v. Nintendo and 17 U.S.C. § 117 says yes, MDY v. Blizzard says no).

tome 16y ago

If you can't modify the software (or have no concept of what source code is) these freedoms largely become meaningless. I hear this again and again, and I think it's absolutely false. It's like saying "I don't have the time to shop around for the cheapest product, so a market economy is useless to me" In both cases the point is that even if you don't have the time or the knowledge someone else does, and only a small number of such people are required for the system to bring benefits to everyone.

CitizenKane 16y ago
There may be auxiliary benefits from the freedom that are granted to others. But we're not talking about those benefits, we're talking about the freedoms _you_ have. I'm not arguing that there aren't other benefits, I'm arguing that pratically speaking in both situations your freedom is primarily limited by your lack of knowledge of the situaiton, not by whether the software is proprietary or not.
- tome 16y ago
  Oh come on. Many people I know don't vote because they think (correctly) the time they spend will be much better spent doing something else. That doesn't mean the freedom to elect a democratic government is not valuable to those people.