4 ms·

> I'm conflicted. I personally waver between "stallman is always right" and "free software misses the point" near constantly, myself. I haven't heard the phras

> I'm conflicted. I personally waver between "stallman is always right" and "free software misses the point" near constantly, myself. I haven't heard the phrase, "free software misses the point", before, and a quick web search turns up too many links to stallman's "why open source misses the point" article. Could you elaborate a little or link somewhere that does? Thank you!

steveklabnik 9y ago
I actually have to thank you, deeply and truly, because in trying to respond to you, it clarifies a bunch of things for me. I've re-written this comment three times. Thanks. I made that phrase up. But I'm sympathetic to the essay, and I think maybe I was subconsciously referring to it. Okay so, my issue with free software is similar to my issue with liberalism. I mean that in a philosophical, historical sense, not a "the Democrats" sense. Liberalism (and much thought from the Enlightenment) is focused on freedom with regards to exchange. The Four Freedoms are focused on "I have this artifact, what can I do with it in relation to others." Marxism, which I am more sympathetic to, instead focuses on production over exchange. That is, the issue is not in individuals exchanging things, but how those things are produced in the first place. So in some sense, it's pre-occupied with the wrong thing. Let's make this more concrete. You know the concept of "source dumps"? Let's say that I'm MegaEvil Inc. I can create some software, and once a year, release a new version. I also give you a copy of the source code, licensed under the GPL. There's no mailing list, no way to send patches, no governance. Just a copy of the source, once a year. This is 100% Free Software, but I'd argue that it misses the point. It's still better than being proprietary! But it doesn't let me, as the user, exercise any control over how the software is made. Yes, I could create a fork, but what happens when one year, there's an extensive internal re-write? At some point, a fork is a completely separate project, and we're back to step 1. That is, the question I'm interested in is, who has the power to affect the development of the software? Free Software has nothing to say about this. But that's the real step forward. Being at the complete whim of upstream isn't that different from being at the whim of a proprietary vendor. Given that I've literally just thought of this, this might be a bit rambly, a bit too deep, and a bit under-developed. But there you go. :)
- Fnoord 9y ago
  I'd say its pretty well written, and the disclaimer on a public forum goes without saying. I suppose I could sum it up as: "GPL doesn't include anything about the infrastructure of the software." The lack of an infrastructure for developers to hook into, could be GPL in literal word (or law), but not GPL in spirit (or morals). Likewise, and to add to your example, client-server architecture such as cloud computing might be GPL compatible in literal word, but not in spirit.

steveklabnik 9y ago

I actually have to thank you, deeply and truly, because in trying to respond to you, it clarifies a bunch of things for me. I've re-written this comment three times. Thanks. I made that phrase up. But I'm sympathetic to the essay, and I think maybe I was subconsciously referring to it. Okay so, my issue with free software is similar to my issue with liberalism. I mean that in a philosophical, historical sense, not a "the Democrats" sense. Liberalism (and much thought from the Enlightenment) is focused on freedom with regards to exchange. The Four Freedoms are focused on "I have this artifact, what can I do with it in relation to others." Marxism, which I am more sympathetic to, instead focuses on production over exchange. That is, the issue is not in individuals exchanging things, but how those things are produced in the first place. So in some sense, it's pre-occupied with the wrong thing. Let's make this more concrete. You know the concept of "source dumps"? Let's say that I'm MegaEvil Inc. I can create some software, and once a year, release a new version. I also give you a copy of the source code, licensed under the GPL. There's no mailing list, no way to send patches, no governance. Just a copy of the source, once a year. This is 100% Free Software, but I'd argue that it misses the point. It's still better than being proprietary! But it doesn't let me, as the user, exercise any control over how the software is made. Yes, I could create a fork, but what happens when one year, there's an extensive internal re-write? At some point, a fork is a completely separate project, and we're back to step 1. That is, the question I'm interested in is, who has the power to affect the development of the software? Free Software has nothing to say about this. But that's the real step forward. Being at the complete whim of upstream isn't that different from being at the whim of a proprietary vendor. Given that I've literally just thought of this, this might be a bit rambly, a bit too deep, and a bit under-developed. But there you go. :)

Fnoord 9y ago
I'd say its pretty well written, and the disclaimer on a public forum goes without saying. I suppose I could sum it up as: "GPL doesn't include anything about the infrastructure of the software." The lack of an infrastructure for developers to hook into, could be GPL in literal word (or law), but not GPL in spirit (or morals). Likewise, and to add to your example, client-server architecture such as cloud computing might be GPL compatible in literal word, but not in spirit.