5 ms·

I am constantly amazed by and grateful for free software. I write with vi, code in python, work with data in MySQL and Postgres, grapple with text with sed and

I am constantly amazed by and grateful for free software. I write with vi, code in python, work with data in MySQL and Postgres, grapple with text with sed and awk and a host of utilities. I teach courses on MySQL, I think the Windows / closed approach has unnecessarily deadened the average user's ability to appreciate and explore and use their computers. Open source, as idea and software, is great. But. "When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. . . . It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share." Yeah, why? Because RMS says so? There is NO possibility of a closed source usage that is "just"? Is there anything like an argument for this, outside of some Marxist-derivative account of the inevitability of economic structures? That closed source might be bad is possible -- that it is so bad that no reasonable person of good will can possibly hold some other opinion really isn't. Freedom is the right to make decisions, and some times bad decisions. Claiming authority to judge the bad, and thus invalid, decisions, really lays the foundations for some serious power moves. Maybe RMS thinks corporations and free contract and market forces are some kind of sham, and maybe he's right, but it isn't as if there isn't another point of view. Why do I have to sign up with a core ideology to be supportive of open source? Actually, why do I have to sign up with an ideology that sounds positively hostile to a lot of what I think and believe? The technical arguments for open source are tremendous. The ethical arguments for it aren't bad. But setting the whole debate in terms agreement with one man's morality is a non-starter for me. Now I can use and support open software without signing up for the whole ideology. And I do. But the two are so associated that I often feel my own integrity requires using some bandwidth expressing disagreement with large chunks of the "open source philosophy". That's a poor use of time, and it diffuses the best arguments. Insisting on open source as some moral imperative is poor philosphy, and poor rhetoric.

joe_the_user 13y ago
"Freedom is the right to make decisions, and some times bad decisions. Claiming authority to judge the bad, and thus invalid, decisions, really lays the foundations for some serious power moves." Uh, having the technical means to make unilateral decisions for someone else (often secretly) is what lays the basis for "serious power moves" as we've seen with the NSA. "Judging someone" is also known as "expressing your opinion". Stallman expressing his opinion hardly gives him the serious power that, say, NSA arrogates to itself by installing backdoors in people's computer, using secret laws to seize private keys from service providers and so-forth.
ajross 13y ago
This seems like a strawman. You aren't disagreeing with the specific points, you're saying that because you don't agree with everything in the essay that you're ... somehow offended by it. And I understand that, because I lived for years in that same "RMS is a unrealistic pinko commie idealist whose ideas don't work in the real world" camp. The thing is, he was right. He was right about pretty much everything. So sure: you don't like his tone, and I understand that. But I don't think you're completely clear on his points.
- chernevik 13y ago
  This isn't his tone, it is the foundation of his argument -- closed source is necessarily and fundamentally immoral, nay, evil. That's an extraordinary claim, which drives his thinking to absolutism. And its bases have implications far outside the field of software.
  - ajross 13y ago
    Right. So you reject his absolutism via an equally absolutist stance where you refuse to treat his arguments because you don't like their "implications". Shrug. I used to think like you. I was wrong. Read his points, not their "implications". I suspect you'll find more to agree with than you think.
    - chernevik 13y ago
      Exactly wrong. Read the bit where I talk about agreeing with him, and finding ways to cooperate without agreeing with him everywhere?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "closed source is necessarily and fundamentally immoral, nay, evil" Keep in mind that RMS is talking about the broader social impact of a proprietary software ecosystem, not any single proprietary software product. RMS is working against a model where people are divided by the restrictions imposed by proprietary licenses and by proprietary software itself. In a proprietary software ecosystem, people are divided not merely by their technical skills, but by the whims of software vendors. The reason RMS' arguments seem to have implications outside the field of software is that proprietary software ecosystems have effects that go beyond software.
joe_the_user 13y ago
Maybe RMS thinks corporations and free contract and market forces are some kind of sham, and maybe he's right, but it isn't as if there isn't another point of view. While RMS may be something of anarchist, I would also like to point out that here he is making a very kind of argument. That is, when someone uses proprietary, closed source software they are inherently signing a "mystery contract", meaning that since because they inherent don't know what the software will do, they inherently give away some of their knowledge. And moreover, given that software (in the form of browsers etc) is now used as people's "window on the world", people potentially give up a lot of their freedom (and the NSA revelations certainly show the potential here). I think all of the argument for the efficiency and desirability of free markets hinge on full information availability to allow free choice. And so I actually think a libertarian could agree that proprietary soft is inherently undesirable just as they'd agree a "contract for slavery" would inherent undesirable.
- chernevik 13y ago
  Much of theory and thinking on markets recognizes information assymmetries. That's one reason trust, reputation and enforceability of contract matter. People buy stuff in functioning markets without full knowledge or transparency all the time. And sure, some decisions are so clearly lousy that they can't be respected / enforced -- such as a contract for slavery. But they are few and far between. Saying an iPhone is the same thing as indentured servitude is a pretty long reach.
  - chii 13y ago
    > People buy stuff in functioning markets without full knowledge or transparency all the time. but just the threat of consumer reaction made possible by consumer watch dogs is enough to enforce good behaviour. Sure, the average consumer does not need to know the inner workings of their toaster, but if a manufacturer made a shoddy design, they will be soon found out. This isn't true in SaaS(S). A security vulnerability can and would remain a secret but for public disclosure of various watch dogs (and even then, these things are hard to verify). ANd this is just one example.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
So, like I'm on your side but RMS view is more complex than that. But I think even if the criticism attacks somewhat of a strawman view, I think you are essentially right. However, I think it is simpler to just say regardless of whether or not RMS view is "morally right," which is a rather complex matter itself, I think it is enough to recognize the reality that it is an unworkable Utopia that virtually no one would really want to live in and certainly would not led us very far toward technological innovation ... And before anyone gets up in arms about, Stallman has freely admitted as much and remains principled and undaunted by that. I get it. Apparently, Kant wouldn't haves lied to the murderer either ... but let's get real here.
emiliobumachar 13y ago
You do not have to "sign up with a core ideology to be supportive of open source". If you feel morally obligated to express your opinions on the issue often, and is worried about the time it takes, I humbly suggest a blog post with a short-ish url.
millstone 13y ago
You might be interested to learn that out of your list (vi, Python, mySQL, Postgres, sed, and awk), only MySQL is released under a free software license (GPL). The others are released under BSD or BSD-like licenses. > my own integrity requires using some bandwidth expressing disagreement with large chunks of the "open source philosophy". You're looking for the distinction between "free software" and "open source." The FSF is very vocal about the difference, which is great, since it is important. See rms's article at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html . "I love open source, but I don't buy into the free software ideology" is totally valid, and apparently a popular position, judging by the choice of licenses in software you listed!
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > You might be interested to learn that out of your list (vi, Python, mySQL, Postgres, sed, and awk), only MySQL is released under a free software license (GPL). The others are released under BSD or BSD-like licenses. The BSD license (and "BSD-like" licenses) are free software licenses. "Free" does not mean "copyleft". http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
  - millstone 13y ago
    Thank you for the correction.

joe_the_user 13y ago

"Freedom is the right to make decisions, and some times bad decisions. Claiming authority to judge the bad, and thus invalid, decisions, really lays the foundations for some serious power moves." Uh, having the technical means to make unilateral decisions for someone else (often secretly) is what lays the basis for "serious power moves" as we've seen with the NSA. "Judging someone" is also known as "expressing your opinion". Stallman expressing his opinion hardly gives him the serious power that, say, NSA arrogates to itself by installing backdoors in people's computer, using secret laws to seize private keys from service providers and so-forth.

ajross 13y ago

This seems like a strawman. You aren't disagreeing with the specific points, you're saying that because you don't agree with everything in the essay that you're ... somehow offended by it. And I understand that, because I lived for years in that same "RMS is a unrealistic pinko commie idealist whose ideas don't work in the real world" camp. The thing is, he was right. He was right about pretty much everything. So sure: you don't like his tone, and I understand that. But I don't think you're completely clear on his points.

chernevik 13y ago
This isn't his tone, it is the foundation of his argument -- closed source is necessarily and fundamentally immoral, nay, evil. That's an extraordinary claim, which drives his thinking to absolutism. And its bases have implications far outside the field of software.
- ajross 13y ago
  Right. So you reject his absolutism via an equally absolutist stance where you refuse to treat his arguments because you don't like their "implications". Shrug. I used to think like you. I was wrong. Read his points, not their "implications". I suspect you'll find more to agree with than you think.
  - chernevik 13y ago
    Exactly wrong. Read the bit where I talk about agreeing with him, and finding ways to cooperate without agreeing with him everywhere?
- betterunix 13y ago
  "closed source is necessarily and fundamentally immoral, nay, evil" Keep in mind that RMS is talking about the broader social impact of a proprietary software ecosystem, not any single proprietary software product. RMS is working against a model where people are divided by the restrictions imposed by proprietary licenses and by proprietary software itself. In a proprietary software ecosystem, people are divided not merely by their technical skills, but by the whims of software vendors. The reason RMS' arguments seem to have implications outside the field of software is that proprietary software ecosystems have effects that go beyond software.

joe_the_user 13y ago

Maybe RMS thinks corporations and free contract and market forces are some kind of sham, and maybe he's right, but it isn't as if there isn't another point of view. While RMS may be something of anarchist, I would also like to point out that here he is making a very kind of argument. That is, when someone uses proprietary, closed source software they are inherently signing a "mystery contract", meaning that since because they inherent don't know what the software will do, they inherently give away some of their knowledge. And moreover, given that software (in the form of browsers etc) is now used as people's "window on the world", people potentially give up a lot of their freedom (and the NSA revelations certainly show the potential here). I think all of the argument for the efficiency and desirability of free markets hinge on full information availability to allow free choice. And so I actually think a libertarian could agree that proprietary soft is inherently undesirable just as they'd agree a "contract for slavery" would inherent undesirable.

chernevik 13y ago
Much of theory and thinking on markets recognizes information assymmetries. That's one reason trust, reputation and enforceability of contract matter. People buy stuff in functioning markets without full knowledge or transparency all the time. And sure, some decisions are so clearly lousy that they can't be respected / enforced -- such as a contract for slavery. But they are few and far between. Saying an iPhone is the same thing as indentured servitude is a pretty long reach.
- chii 13y ago
  > People buy stuff in functioning markets without full knowledge or transparency all the time. but just the threat of consumer reaction made possible by consumer watch dogs is enough to enforce good behaviour. Sure, the average consumer does not need to know the inner workings of their toaster, but if a manufacturer made a shoddy design, they will be soon found out. This isn't true in SaaS(S). A security vulnerability can and would remain a secret but for public disclosure of various watch dogs (and even then, these things are hard to verify). ANd this is just one example.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

So, like I'm on your side but RMS view is more complex than that. But I think even if the criticism attacks somewhat of a strawman view, I think you are essentially right. However, I think it is simpler to just say regardless of whether or not RMS view is "morally right," which is a rather complex matter itself, I think it is enough to recognize the reality that it is an unworkable Utopia that virtually no one would really want to live in and certainly would not led us very far toward technological innovation ... And before anyone gets up in arms about, Stallman has freely admitted as much and remains principled and undaunted by that. I get it. Apparently, Kant wouldn't haves lied to the murderer either ... but let's get real here.

emiliobumachar 13y ago

You do not have to "sign up with a core ideology to be supportive of open source". If you feel morally obligated to express your opinions on the issue often, and is worried about the time it takes, I humbly suggest a blog post with a short-ish url.

millstone 13y ago

You might be interested to learn that out of your list (vi, Python, mySQL, Postgres, sed, and awk), only MySQL is released under a free software license (GPL). The others are released under BSD or BSD-like licenses. > my own integrity requires using some bandwidth expressing disagreement with large chunks of the "open source philosophy". You're looking for the distinction between "free software" and "open source." The FSF is very vocal about the difference, which is great, since it is important. See rms's article at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html . "I love open source, but I don't buy into the free software ideology" is totally valid, and apparently a popular position, judging by the choice of licenses in software you listed!

chimeracoder 13y ago
> You might be interested to learn that out of your list (vi, Python, mySQL, Postgres, sed, and awk), only MySQL is released under a free software license (GPL). The others are released under BSD or BSD-like licenses. The BSD license (and "BSD-like" licenses) are free software licenses. "Free" does not mean "copyleft". http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- millstone 13y ago
  Thank you for the correction.