FSDN: ˇ Debian Planet ˇ PostgreSQL Techdocs ˇ GNU ˇ SweetCode
[GNU-Friends] Sections: Front Page ˇ News ˇ Interviews ˇ GNU-Friends ˇ Diaries
Menu: About ˇ Submit Story ˇ FAQ ˇ Donate ˇ Search
This page brought to you by: Jonas Öberg, just another GNU friend.
The Foo Software Movement
By kholmes, Section GNU-Friends
Posted on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 06:52:47 GMT

As opposed to the other stories I've submitted to this forum, I though I'd offer a bit of criticism on the Free Software Movement and the GNU Project.

The question is, what happens if instead of implying that using software such as GNU gives you freedom, we choose some arbitrary word to describe it?

If, as Stallman repeatively describes it, we must use the term Free Software to remind people of freedom, then what sort of freedom is this that is necessary to have?

 

Fire is fire, of course, even by any other name. And we must say the same about a philosophy. If the freeness of software is in anyway an objective right, then it need not be constrained by our choice of word for it. If "free software" does not fit under the umbrella of free, then we ought to find another name for it.

My new found critism on using the term "free software" comes from this Slashdot post.

He makes several good, if subtle points, that I really encourage everyone here to read.

After careful reading of that post, I realize that the only sense of "free" I ever associated with the free software movement was that the software was more free than proprietary software.

However, that free software allows collaborative software development, isn't necessarily an aspect of freedom. Yet this seems to be Stallman's primary motivation behind his efforts with GNU and the FSF. Rather than being free of restrictions or supposed oppression, Stallman wants to encourage people to help one another by primarily removing legislation that restricts this action.

Stallman makes a good point in this regard. His GNU Manifesto is quite explicit on how he uses the golden rule to eventually make his stark moral choice.

But how is this about freedom?
< Wired on the Free Software Dinner (7 comments) | GPL violoations and Sigma Delta (3 comments) >
Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Poll
The Foo Software Movement, Foo as in:
Free
Social
Collaborative
Open
Open Source
GNU
Hurd
None of the Above

Votes: 18
Results | Other Polls

View: Display: Sort:
The Foo Software Movement | 12 comments (12 topical, editorial) | Post A Comment
[new] Mislead (#1)
by leandro (#155) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 11:27:55 GMT
(User Info) http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/

The original post you cite from Slashdot was an answer to a mislead FSF advocate who had stated his case very badly. It answers those specific, badly stated definitions, but not the original definitions used by FSF and the GNU project, as orginally stated by Stallman and his associates, by any means.

I think it is very clear from the material at the FSF that they don't advocate unlimited freedom, but freedom restrained by moral standards. Now copyright is a freedom restraint that is not related in any way to moral standards, but to economic benefits in the printing press age. When applied to digital systems, it not only becomes a dubious economic proposition, but also contradicts moral common sense.

Knowing there is little chance of redefining copyright laws into their original, printing press scope, the FSF and the GNU Project strive, thru copyleft, to keep the freedom we do still have, of reading, modifying and redistributing source code, from further restrictions. And to that end, it restricts what is known as software hoarding; it prohibits any part of denying others' freedom to do what it itself has already enjoyed, namely reading, modifying and redistributing code.

Stallman does not wants primarily to remove legislation, but to expose its folliness by using the self same freedom-restricting legislation to keep some measure of freedom. That may well end up exposing for everyone to see the folliness of extending copyright out of its original scope and terms, but that is a far-reaching consequence that is many years in the future if at all.

[ Reply to This ]


 
[new] Mislead (#2)
by leandro (#155) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 11:34:00 GMT
(User Info) http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/

The original post you cite from Slashdot was an answer to a mislead FSF advocate who had stated his case very badly. It answers those specific, badly stated and applied definitions, but not the original definitions used by FSF and the GNU project, as originally stated by Stallman and his associates, by any means.

It is very clear from the material at the FSF that they don't advocate unlimited freedom, but freedom restrained by moral standards. Now copyright is a freedom restraint that is not related in any way to moral standards, but to economic benefits in the printing press age. When applied to digital systems, it not only becomes a dubious economic proposition, but also contradicts moral common sense.

Knowing there is little chance of redefining copyright laws into their original, printing press scope, the FSF and the GNU Project strive, thru copyleft, to keep the freedom we do still have, of reading, modifying and redistributing source code, from further restrictions. And to that end, it restricts what is known as software hoarding; it prohibits any part of denying others' freedom to do what it itself has already enjoyed, namely reading, modifying and redistributing code.

Stallman does not wants primarily to remove legislation, but to expose its folliness by using the self same freedom-restricting legislation to keep some measure of freedom. That may well end up exposing for everyone to see the folliness of extending copyright out of its original scope and terms, but that is a far-reaching consequence that is many years in the future if at all.

Before exposing yourself, perhaps it would be better to first discuss these issues with people who really grok the GNU GPL, copyleft and the whole free software philosophy. That would give you a better standing to criticise anything. One can't criticise based on misunderstandings only.

[ Reply to This ]


[new] Community (#4)
by wolfgangj (#341) on Fri Aug 23rd, 2002 at 14:58:44 GMT
(User Info)

Hi!

All the people who critisize the HNU GPL for not being "completely free" seem to miss an important point: The GPL (and GNU in general) is not only about freedom. It is also about community. And the GPL is a great combination of freedom of the individual and interests of the community.

Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang

The GNU Hurd - giving freedom to users!
[ Reply to This ]


[new] Freedom and the word "free" in English (#7)
by atai (#278) on Mon Aug 26th, 2002 at 01:54:31 GMT
(User Info)

There is the problem with the word "free" in English. It has multiple meanings.

What Stallman said was freedom. Freedom by any other name is still Freedom.

The problem with the word "free" in English is a separate matter from software freedom.

What bothers me is that why is the problem of the English word "free" seems to extend to other languages. This website is located in North Europe somewhere, and I assume the local languages should have no problem describing free (libre) software. Why should non-English speakers get stuck in the confusion over the word "free" is strange.

[ Reply to This ]


[new] No argument with free software philosophy (#9)
by kholmes (#316) () on Tue Aug 27th, 2002 at 06:30:25 GMT
(User Info)

This article is not commenting on the free software philosophy as a whole. And Wolfgang is right, free software is much more about social community than freedom.

In fact, that was my argument. If the free software movement is working towards creating a community based around software, then why involve the idea of freedom at all? In fact, the harsher critism made by foobar in the linked slashdot article was that Stallman was using the idea of freedom as a "transfer" device, a propaganda technique used to get support from people who otherwise support freedom. But this can only true if the free software movement wasn't about freedom at all.

Now, I hardly agree with foobar in this regard. I am glad for GNU's existance and currently use entirely free software. Stallman's social arguments about free software are by far the most compelling. But telling people they should share isn't related to telling people they want to be free.

If community is want you want, then the free software philosophy is what you are looking for. If, however, freedom is what you want, then the free software philosophy seems to be lacking.

I am open minded, of course, but I would really like to see more evidence that free software is about freedom.

[ Reply to This ]


The Foo Software Movement | 12 comments (12 topical, editorial) | Post A Comment
View: Display: Sort:

Verbatim copying and distribution of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Images of gnu:s in the logo are © Free Software Foundation, Inc and distributed under the GNU General Public License. Comments are copyright by thir respective owner. All other material are © 2002 .