5 ms·

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

by 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.

by clarry 13y ago

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.