9 ms·

The Free Software Foundation is even more relevant now than before

205 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

clarry 13y ago
Free software is nice, privacy and security are needed, yada yada. Yes, I absolutely agree. What does the FSF have to do with this? This an interesting claim in the title, but the post does nothing to explain the relevancy of FSF. I used to be an avid supporter of the FSF, but in the recent years I've been shying away from them because I don't see how they're relevant to the well-being of free software. In fact I've come to see them as a lobbying group pushing their one-sided view of what free software is and how it should be. I much prefer to support free software projects and the people who actually write and maintain free software. I do this in the form of testing, code contributions, code review, bug reports, and user support. I'd also donate if I weren't living on a student's budget. I used to be subscribed to some FSF mailing list. They kept asking for donations, but never did they give the impression that they're spending it on improving or making any free software I value. Sorry, I don't want to support their lobbying with my money.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  These are reasonable complaints, but I think it remains the case that the FSF and GNU are the most consistent advocates of these issues. I too do not agree with their tactics in every case. I think we can say the FSF message is important now, if we take that to be their core ideals about software freedom. Whether you specifically go through the FSF in your support of software freedom is another matter.
  - duskwuff 13y ago
    Lately, their message usually seems to be that some new product they've decided to pick on (say, an iOS device, or a new version of Windows, or what-have-you) is evil and will enslave your children, or something. I know their message is supposed to be about free software, but it tends to get lost under the ranting and smear campaigns.
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      Actually, their campaigns (BadVista, Windows 7 Sins and whatever the newest one is) do outline valid issues and try to offer more reasonable alternatives. Yes, they are blunt and provocative, but that's how you incite debate and bring about more attention to your cause. The main problem is that they aren't getting much traction for various reasons. One is that end users aren't aware of free software and major vendors aim to keep it that way, and another is that the benefits of free software aren't immediately obvious to the end user.
      - eropple 13y ago
        > Yes, they are blunt and provocative, but that's how you incite debate and bring about more attention to your cause. Only if it's a cause people have any reason to care about. Otherwise you look like a crank. The FSF's lack of understanding of people who are not obsessively like them has delivered them firmly to "crank" territory and they have been there for most of the time I've been aware of their existence (so 12-ish years at least?). They make more reasonable people and more reasonable arguments seem less valid to most people through their existence. Which is fine to me, I find "free software" distasteful and preachy, but if they actually wanted to be successful, they'd turn down the steadfast unwillingness to understand normal people a whole lot.
        spacelizard 13y ago
        As someone who's tried to explain this issue several times to laypeople, there's not much else that can be done. It really just does not resonate with anyone who isn't in the field and doesn't understand what software really is or how copyright works; most people not in the business just download everything on filesharing networks anyway, they couldn't care less about software licensing. The only thing that really can be done is to fund and promote the development of free software replacements for software that everyone wants to use, which the FSF is already doing and has been doing for quite some time.
      - astrange 13y ago
        Perhaps they're not getting traction because they're blunt and provocative? I haven't heard of FSFE and FSFLA starting any campaigns of the sort, and they seem to be having some kind of actual effect.
- gjulianm 13y ago
  I absolutely agree with you. Lately, the FSF is just being perceived as screaming about "this is bad" (and from their point of view almost everything is bad) and not "these other things are cool, support them!". That's the wrong approach, you can't just tell people how bad is everything because they'll end up ignoring your reasonings, even when those are completely logical.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    >these other things are cool, support them! https://www.fsf.org/resources/ https://www.fsf.org/resources/
    - gjulianm 13y ago
      It's not that they have a page about cool free software things. It's the message they transmit to everybody.
- profquail 13y ago
  I agree. I respect Stallman and the FSF, and I think certain parts of their message are important, but I prefer to keep my politics and my software separate. IMO, this is one of the reasons people really like FreeBSD -- there's no political agenda behind it, just people who want to build and use great software. As for this article, I'm curious to know why (or if) anyone would donate money to the FSF to be used for lobbying rather than giving it to an established lobbying organization like the EFF or ACLU.
  - destan 13y ago
    politics and software are tightly coupled independent of whether you pretend it's not... regarding your second paragraph, fsf needs money to carry campaigns to tell the people about the inconvenient truth.
    - profquail 13y ago
      Can you explain to me why, in your opinion, politics and software are tightly coupled? Or perhaps provide a citation to an explanation from a (preferably unbiased) source? Without any evidence, I really don't see why these two things must go together.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
        sbuk 13y ago
        I wouldn't cite Lawrence Lessig as unbiased.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Perhaps not, but it's an obscure enough question that it's not going to be analyzed in any depth by someone without some interest nearby. And the parent did say "preferably unbiased", leaving some implication that a biased source is acceptable absent others. Regardless, the arguments can be evaluated on their merits - Lessig is certainly a serious participant in the discussion.
- smithzvk 13y ago
  The FSF is about advocating for Free Software. From their point of view (and I think this is mostly true) the conditions are in place where society doesn't actually need to use proprietary software (outside of device drivers, and they are actively working to improve that situation). Sure, you personally have to use proprietary software because the rest of the world does and proprietary solutions are often superior (either technically or in terms of usability), but we would get by fine, as a society, if we did away with proprietary software. Further, so long as proprietary software is used by most people, and most developers are getting paid to develop proprietary software, technical superiority is almost guaranteed. I think that the FSF long ago realized that the battle field is in public opinion, not in delivering quality software. Sure, the software needs to be "good enough", but once the software is "good enough" then no killer feature is going to shift people away from the proprietary software that they know and that the vast majority of the world is using. Now, there could be meta-killer features in terms of responsive development, transparency, and privacy. So, I can completely understand that the FSF feels that their time is best served by getting the public to change their views regarding Free Software vs proprietary software. I don't think that it has been very effective, but it is a heck of an uphill battle. But doing this in combination with their other work (lobbying, writing briefs for court cases, acting as a GPL violator watch dog, and publicizing when large organizations have selected Free Software over a proprietary alternative) also help the cause more than funding any particular project I can think of.
laureny 13y ago
The FSF has never been very relevant so saying it's more relevant than before is not setting the bar very high. Besides, that's probably what you'd expect to hear from someone bragging they've been supporting it for 30 years. I appreciate the value that free software brings but what differentiates me from the people at the FSF is that I also realize that free software is not a panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement to the existence of a healthy ecosystem.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  I think the intent was to say that the FSF message is relevant, i.e. the message about software freedom. And that message has been very relevant regardless of how many people are open to it. That is indeed different than claiming the FSF's relevance, but I think that was the intention.
  - laureny 13y ago
    Agreed, so take the message and ignore the organization that promotes it, especially when that organization has such a track record of being led by people who see the world as black and white and who are not open to an ounce of compromise about their views.
- Kim_Bruning 13y ago
  As I gain experience over time, it begins to appears to me that free software is the only long-term viable option. I think this is perfectly reasonable, after getting burned for the umpteenth time by proprietary software vendors. (Or vicariously discovering that yes other people have indeed been burned yet again)
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    On the flip side, I've been burnt by Open software vendors who have decided that their commercial needs mean discontinuing support and funding for their own projects. The Insight frontend for gdb, for example, was fantastic, but has languished since RedHat bought out Cygnus. I can also point to the support policies of many Open operating systems -- I can still get support, patches, and bugfixes for Windows Vista, which was released in 2007, but can no longer get support, patches, and bugfixes for any Linux distribution released in a similar timeframe. While I can see more and more of the market moving towards Open solutions, I can only see FSF-created solutions dragging us down.
brador 13y ago
We need a truly open source mobile operating system.
- cmccabe 13y ago
  Let me guess-- you're going to "no true scotsman" all the actual existing open source mobile operating systems.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Which ones? Afaik, every 'open source' mobile operating system requires proprietary software to actually function.
- frozenport 13y ago
  Why? In the mobile space, a race to bottom of the price point along with operating in China is making it increasingly hard for hardware companies to maintain their IP. Life sucks when your team's design has been stolen.
- chestnut-tree 13y ago
  "We need a truly open source mobile operating system." We have one - Firefox OS from Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/
  - brador 13y ago
    Because of over dependence on Google money, Firefox are essentially an arm of Google at this point. I've lost trust in them. The first thing a fresh install of Forefox does is ping Google.
    - quadrangle 13y ago
      Don't mistrust Mozilla because of their Google relations. Such conflicts of interest are complex, but this is a case where things are quite complex. It may be less than ideal, but Mozilla is still overwhelmingly positive.
microcolonel 13y ago
I think the issue is that the stallmanites cling too much to the state. They think the state is there to apply rule of law(something which in practice rarely happens even for serious crimes like murder) and that it can effectively apply law to itself; this has been proven wrong time and time again, and is one of the failings of contemporary societies. I am enchanted by the freedoms of free software, just as I am by freedoms in broader life; Freedom is part of the product when I pay for software, and the understanding is that I will come back to the author if I want the work of the people who best understand it, rather than the people who refuse to let me. I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard(for whom I have no personal gripe), because Richard has a government addiction(even when it comes to problems widely caused by government to begin with, such as software patent litigation). If we can learn to separate our understanding of justice from our misguided best wishes for the state, I think free software, and freedom in general can prosper.
- chatman 13y ago
  > I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.
    - belorn 13y ago
      Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.
chatman 13y ago
The author's own "wishlist" and bullet points are very reasonable for almost any of us to do. In such an environment, one has the freedom without sacrificing too much convenience. Esp. the cloud backup using encrypted archives on periodic basis.
znowi 13y ago
The top comments here are well correlated to the current state of privacy in the US :)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
zeruch 13y ago
Having relevance conceptually and having a vehicle internally that knows how to communicate beyond its sycophantic core audience are two radically different things. The FSF has never been good at messaging; even its best speaker, Eben Moglen, has effectively cut his own path. The FSFs ardent dogmatism serves a kind of barometric reading of a key segment, but it has little to offer as a "big tent" player in the broader discourse.
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
I always thought that "free" in the FSF and other names stood as "for free", no payment needed, did not realize it actually stood for freedom. I think it might be that other people also mistake free software with some spam foundation, since the more common association of "free software" comes from spam malware filled websites offering "registry cleaners".
- yesbabyyes 13y ago
  This unfortunate dual meaning of "free" in English is the reason for Richard Stallman saying: > To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- tsm 13y ago
  And this all could have been avoided if they were known as the Software Freedom Foundation...
josteink 13y ago
Free software is definitely high on my list of priorities right now. However, what seems equally important is data-ownership. If you can't obtain ownership of your own data, what does it matter which software you run? In that regard, this commment on reddit has some good leads to get started taking your data back from Google: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twitter_users_switching_to_android_as/ccdpdj0 http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twi...
- melange 13y ago
  Free software stands in opposition to free data. When software is free data becomes the center of value and therefore is hoarded.
  - eevilspock 13y ago
    I think you're confusing free software (e.g. Linux) with ad-supported software and services (e.g. Google). That Google or any other ad-supported product is free is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. But with advertising, it's actually much more expensive: Cost of thing itself + Cost of advertising overhead + Opportunity cost of inferior product + Cost of our identities and privacy (as bought and sold to the highest bidders) + Social cost of advertising To me the last item is the most expensive of all.
    - melange 13y ago
      I'm not confusing anything, although I agree with you about Google. The point is that if source code is always available the value of software goes to zero, and the only value is in information. This leads to the existence of companies like Google, who rely on the data they hoard to make money. It also accounts for the "do consulting" explanation for how to make money out of free software.
agumonkey 13y ago
Has there ever been a Free Hardware Foundation or an effort in this direction ?
- pjc50 13y ago
  There are some efforts (e.g. opencores), but as discussed here: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-open-hardware-so-rare/ http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-... , and the famous Arduino is "open". The "freedom to redistribute copies" and "freedom to modify" aspects of Free software really don't translate well to hardware. There is work and cost associated with copying a board, and much more associated with copying an ASIC (modified or otherwise). It's simply not going to be within the reach of the average user in the forseeable future. Another factor is rapid obsolescence. Some of the open UNIX software is thirty years old; GCC is about 25 years old. Open hardware will generally have a shorter time before it starts looking horribly obsolete. This is especially true of all the things that people really want to be open: processors, graphics hardware, wireless interfaces. (You could have an open replacement for e.g. the 555 or LM741, which would be more timeless, but what would be the point? How would it differ materially from the current ones?) There is certainly scope for "community" hardware development, but that depends on having a stable, sensible community that can agree what it wants and is willing to pay for. Again, requires a lot of work.
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    I guess we'll have to wait for not too expensive, electricity efficient and fast FPGAs.
    - pjc50 13y ago
      By the nature of their technology, any FPGA will always be more expensive and energy hungry than the inflexible ASIC counterpart. No silver bullet. What's more likely is interesting SoCs with partially reconfigurable analog blocks and accessible graphics co-processors.
      - 13y ago

205 points by Tsiolkovsky 13y ago

Free software is nice, privacy and security are needed, yada yada. Yes, I absolutely agree. What does the FSF have to do with this? This an interesting claim in the title, but the post does nothing to explain the relevancy of FSF. I used to be an avid supporter of the FSF, but in the recent years I've been shying away from them because I don't see how they're relevant to the well-being of free software. In fact I've come to see them as a lobbying group pushing their one-sided view of what free software is and how it should be. I much prefer to support free software projects and the people who actually write and maintain free software. I do this in the form of testing, code contributions, code review, bug reports, and user support. I'd also donate if I weren't living on a student's budget. I used to be subscribed to some FSF mailing list. They kept asking for donations, but never did they give the impression that they're spending it on improving or making any free software I value. Sorry, I don't want to support their lobbying with my money.

quadrangle 13y ago
These are reasonable complaints, but I think it remains the case that the FSF and GNU are the most consistent advocates of these issues. I too do not agree with their tactics in every case. I think we can say the FSF message is important now, if we take that to be their core ideals about software freedom. Whether you specifically go through the FSF in your support of software freedom is another matter.
- duskwuff 13y ago
  Lately, their message usually seems to be that some new product they've decided to pick on (say, an iOS device, or a new version of Windows, or what-have-you) is evil and will enslave your children, or something. I know their message is supposed to be about free software, but it tends to get lost under the ranting and smear campaigns.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    Actually, their campaigns (BadVista, Windows 7 Sins and whatever the newest one is) do outline valid issues and try to offer more reasonable alternatives. Yes, they are blunt and provocative, but that's how you incite debate and bring about more attention to your cause. The main problem is that they aren't getting much traction for various reasons. One is that end users aren't aware of free software and major vendors aim to keep it that way, and another is that the benefits of free software aren't immediately obvious to the end user.
    - eropple 13y ago
      > Yes, they are blunt and provocative, but that's how you incite debate and bring about more attention to your cause. Only if it's a cause people have any reason to care about. Otherwise you look like a crank. The FSF's lack of understanding of people who are not obsessively like them has delivered them firmly to "crank" territory and they have been there for most of the time I've been aware of their existence (so 12-ish years at least?). They make more reasonable people and more reasonable arguments seem less valid to most people through their existence. Which is fine to me, I find "free software" distasteful and preachy, but if they actually wanted to be successful, they'd turn down the steadfast unwillingness to understand normal people a whole lot.
      - spacelizard 13y ago
        As someone who's tried to explain this issue several times to laypeople, there's not much else that can be done. It really just does not resonate with anyone who isn't in the field and doesn't understand what software really is or how copyright works; most people not in the business just download everything on filesharing networks anyway, they couldn't care less about software licensing. The only thing that really can be done is to fund and promote the development of free software replacements for software that everyone wants to use, which the FSF is already doing and has been doing for quite some time.
    - astrange 13y ago
      Perhaps they're not getting traction because they're blunt and provocative? I haven't heard of FSFE and FSFLA starting any campaigns of the sort, and they seem to be having some kind of actual effect.
gjulianm 13y ago
I absolutely agree with you. Lately, the FSF is just being perceived as screaming about "this is bad" (and from their point of view almost everything is bad) and not "these other things are cool, support them!". That's the wrong approach, you can't just tell people how bad is everything because they'll end up ignoring your reasonings, even when those are completely logical.
- dublinben 13y ago
  >these other things are cool, support them! https://www.fsf.org/resources/ https://www.fsf.org/resources/
  - gjulianm 13y ago
    It's not that they have a page about cool free software things. It's the message they transmit to everybody.
profquail 13y ago
I agree. I respect Stallman and the FSF, and I think certain parts of their message are important, but I prefer to keep my politics and my software separate. IMO, this is one of the reasons people really like FreeBSD -- there's no political agenda behind it, just people who want to build and use great software. As for this article, I'm curious to know why (or if) anyone would donate money to the FSF to be used for lobbying rather than giving it to an established lobbying organization like the EFF or ACLU.
- destan 13y ago
  politics and software are tightly coupled independent of whether you pretend it's not... regarding your second paragraph, fsf needs money to carry campaigns to tell the people about the inconvenient truth.
  - profquail 13y ago
    Can you explain to me why, in your opinion, politics and software are tightly coupled? Or perhaps provide a citation to an explanation from a (preferably unbiased) source? Without any evidence, I really don't see why these two things must go together.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/01/code-is-law-html
      - sbuk 13y ago
        I wouldn't cite Lawrence Lessig as unbiased.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        Perhaps not, but it's an obscure enough question that it's not going to be analyzed in any depth by someone without some interest nearby. And the parent did say "preferably unbiased", leaving some implication that a biased source is acceptable absent others. Regardless, the arguments can be evaluated on their merits - Lessig is certainly a serious participant in the discussion.
smithzvk 13y ago
The FSF is about advocating for Free Software. From their point of view (and I think this is mostly true) the conditions are in place where society doesn't actually need to use proprietary software (outside of device drivers, and they are actively working to improve that situation). Sure, you personally have to use proprietary software because the rest of the world does and proprietary solutions are often superior (either technically or in terms of usability), but we would get by fine, as a society, if we did away with proprietary software. Further, so long as proprietary software is used by most people, and most developers are getting paid to develop proprietary software, technical superiority is almost guaranteed. I think that the FSF long ago realized that the battle field is in public opinion, not in delivering quality software. Sure, the software needs to be "good enough", but once the software is "good enough" then no killer feature is going to shift people away from the proprietary software that they know and that the vast majority of the world is using. Now, there could be meta-killer features in terms of responsive development, transparency, and privacy. So, I can completely understand that the FSF feels that their time is best served by getting the public to change their views regarding Free Software vs proprietary software. I don't think that it has been very effective, but it is a heck of an uphill battle. But doing this in combination with their other work (lobbying, writing briefs for court cases, acting as a GPL violator watch dog, and publicizing when large organizations have selected Free Software over a proprietary alternative) also help the cause more than funding any particular project I can think of.

laureny 13y ago

The FSF has never been very relevant so saying it's more relevant than before is not setting the bar very high. Besides, that's probably what you'd expect to hear from someone bragging they've been supporting it for 30 years. I appreciate the value that free software brings but what differentiates me from the people at the FSF is that I also realize that free software is not a panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement to the existence of a healthy ecosystem.

quadrangle 13y ago
I think the intent was to say that the FSF message is relevant, i.e. the message about software freedom. And that message has been very relevant regardless of how many people are open to it. That is indeed different than claiming the FSF's relevance, but I think that was the intention.
- laureny 13y ago
  Agreed, so take the message and ignore the organization that promotes it, especially when that organization has such a track record of being led by people who see the world as black and white and who are not open to an ounce of compromise about their views.
Kim_Bruning 13y ago
As I gain experience over time, it begins to appears to me that free software is the only long-term viable option. I think this is perfectly reasonable, after getting burned for the umpteenth time by proprietary software vendors. (Or vicariously discovering that yes other people have indeed been burned yet again)
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  On the flip side, I've been burnt by Open software vendors who have decided that their commercial needs mean discontinuing support and funding for their own projects. The Insight frontend for gdb, for example, was fantastic, but has languished since RedHat bought out Cygnus. I can also point to the support policies of many Open operating systems -- I can still get support, patches, and bugfixes for Windows Vista, which was released in 2007, but can no longer get support, patches, and bugfixes for any Linux distribution released in a similar timeframe. While I can see more and more of the market moving towards Open solutions, I can only see FSF-created solutions dragging us down.

brador 13y ago

We need a truly open source mobile operating system.

cmccabe 13y ago
Let me guess-- you're going to "no true scotsman" all the actual existing open source mobile operating systems.
- dublinben 13y ago
  Which ones? Afaik, every 'open source' mobile operating system requires proprietary software to actually function.
frozenport 13y ago
Why? In the mobile space, a race to bottom of the price point along with operating in China is making it increasingly hard for hardware companies to maintain their IP. Life sucks when your team's design has been stolen.
chestnut-tree 13y ago
"We need a truly open source mobile operating system." We have one - Firefox OS from Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/
- brador 13y ago
  Because of over dependence on Google money, Firefox are essentially an arm of Google at this point. I've lost trust in them. The first thing a fresh install of Forefox does is ping Google.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    Don't mistrust Mozilla because of their Google relations. Such conflicts of interest are complex, but this is a case where things are quite complex. It may be less than ideal, but Mozilla is still overwhelmingly positive.

microcolonel 13y ago

I think the issue is that the stallmanites cling too much to the state. They think the state is there to apply rule of law(something which in practice rarely happens even for serious crimes like murder) and that it can effectively apply law to itself; this has been proven wrong time and time again, and is one of the failings of contemporary societies. I am enchanted by the freedoms of free software, just as I am by freedoms in broader life; Freedom is part of the product when I pay for software, and the understanding is that I will come back to the author if I want the work of the people who best understand it, rather than the people who refuse to let me. I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard(for whom I have no personal gripe), because Richard has a government addiction(even when it comes to problems widely caused by government to begin with, such as software patent litigation). If we can learn to separate our understanding of justice from our misguided best wishes for the state, I think free software, and freedom in general can prosper.

chatman 13y ago
> I just wish "free software" wasn't owned by Richard Just because Stallman is the most vocal voice behind Free Software Movement doesn't mean he owns freedom or free software. He is doing a wonderful job of bringing about awareness of free software (not just "open" software).
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  If Stallman is doing such a wonderful job, why are parties, like the various BSDs, making a concerted effort to move to software that is not bound by the restrictions on distribution the organization he leads requires? I'd argue that in releasing the GPLv3, with its increased politicized language, and increased restrictions on use, has fragmented the Free Software community, and made their goals all that more difficult to reach.
  - belorn 13y ago
    Lets first not confuse the issue too much, and note that the number of GPL licensed software projects is increasing by each year. The "fragmentation" you are talking about is not a clean cut. GPLv3 added a bunch compatibility with GPLv2 incompatible license, which for example MPL users was quite happy about. This has clearly helped brining the free software community closer, rather than more fragmented. As for any added restrictions, GPLv3 added two things exactly: 1#) they added a clause that says users should have the right to exercise the permission given by the license to devices those users own. Adding technical, rather the legal restrictions is equally restrictive to the user. 2#) They copied the patent clause from apache license, and included the term "patent agreement" to it. If you do not intend to add technical restrictions to customers owned devices, and you or your business partners don't intend to sue for patents when people use software that you distribute under GPL, GPLv3 will give the exact same legal instructions as GPLv2. Many BSD projects approves of Apple use of BSD. Apple will add technical restrictions to devices owned by their customers, and Apple will sue for patents if they see a business edge in doing so. GPLv3 and FSF do not approve, and that cause the BSD and GPLv3 to view Apple in different light. If you need to take a "side", feel free to do so, but I won't see either BSD or FSF as evil, nor do I think its appropriate to view their disagreement in that light.

chatman 13y ago

The author's own "wishlist" and bullet points are very reasonable for almost any of us to do. In such an environment, one has the freedom without sacrificing too much convenience. Esp. the cloud backup using encrypted archives on periodic basis.

znowi 13y ago

The top comments here are well correlated to the current state of privacy in the US :)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

zeruch 13y ago

Having relevance conceptually and having a vehicle internally that knows how to communicate beyond its sycophantic core audience are two radically different things. The FSF has never been good at messaging; even its best speaker, Eben Moglen, has effectively cut his own path. The FSFs ardent dogmatism serves a kind of barometric reading of a key segment, but it has little to offer as a "big tent" player in the broader discourse.

cLeEOGPw 13y ago

I always thought that "free" in the FSF and other names stood as "for free", no payment needed, did not realize it actually stood for freedom. I think it might be that other people also mistake free software with some spam foundation, since the more common association of "free software" comes from spam malware filled websites offering "registry cleaners".

yesbabyyes 13y ago
This unfortunate dual meaning of "free" in English is the reason for Richard Stallman saying: > To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer". http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
tsm 13y ago
And this all could have been avoided if they were known as the Software Freedom Foundation...

josteink 13y ago

Free software is definitely high on my list of priorities right now. However, what seems equally important is data-ownership. If you can't obtain ownership of your own data, what does it matter which software you run? In that regard, this commment on reddit has some good leads to get started taking your data back from Google: http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twitter_users_switching_to_android_as/ccdpdj0 http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1mxtbl/spike_in_twi...

melange 13y ago
Free software stands in opposition to free data. When software is free data becomes the center of value and therefore is hoarded.
- eevilspock 13y ago
  I think you're confusing free software (e.g. Linux) with ad-supported software and services (e.g. Google). That Google or any other ad-supported product is free is utter bullshit. There is no free lunch. Advertising simply shifts the cost of the "fee lunch" to the price of the advertised products. But with advertising, it's actually much more expensive: Cost of thing itself + Cost of advertising overhead + Opportunity cost of inferior product + Cost of our identities and privacy (as bought and sold to the highest bidders) + Social cost of advertising To me the last item is the most expensive of all.
  - melange 13y ago
    I'm not confusing anything, although I agree with you about Google. The point is that if source code is always available the value of software goes to zero, and the only value is in information. This leads to the existence of companies like Google, who rely on the data they hoard to make money. It also accounts for the "do consulting" explanation for how to make money out of free software.

agumonkey 13y ago

Has there ever been a Free Hardware Foundation or an effort in this direction ?

pjc50 13y ago
There are some efforts (e.g. opencores), but as discussed here: http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-open-hardware-so-rare/ http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/61873/why-is-... , and the famous Arduino is "open". The "freedom to redistribute copies" and "freedom to modify" aspects of Free software really don't translate well to hardware. There is work and cost associated with copying a board, and much more associated with copying an ASIC (modified or otherwise). It's simply not going to be within the reach of the average user in the forseeable future. Another factor is rapid obsolescence. Some of the open UNIX software is thirty years old; GCC is about 25 years old. Open hardware will generally have a shorter time before it starts looking horribly obsolete. This is especially true of all the things that people really want to be open: processors, graphics hardware, wireless interfaces. (You could have an open replacement for e.g. the 555 or LM741, which would be more timeless, but what would be the point? How would it differ materially from the current ones?) There is certainly scope for "community" hardware development, but that depends on having a stable, sensible community that can agree what it wants and is willing to pay for. Again, requires a lot of work.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  I guess we'll have to wait for not too expensive, electricity efficient and fast FPGAs.
  - pjc50 13y ago
    By the nature of their technology, any FPGA will always be more expensive and energy hungry than the inflexible ASIC counterpart. No silver bullet. What's more likely is interesting SoCs with partially reconfigurable analog blocks and accessible graphics co-processors.
    - 13y ago