Twenty years of free software: What now?

Daily Newsletters

Sign up to ZDNet UK's daily newsletter.

COMMENT

It was twenty years ago on Monday that I quit my job at MIT to begin developing a free software operating system, GNU. While we have never released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly are not aware it is such. Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee.

My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software. I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that non-free software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give others a way to escape.

Non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else. To prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.

Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to "use free software". But what does it mean to "use free software"? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our work? In other words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the shallow goal of popularity?

It's easy to get in the habit of overlooking this distinction, because in many common situations it makes no difference. When you're trying to convince a person to try a free program, or to install the GNU/Linux operating system, either goal would lead to the same practical conduct. However, in other situations the two goals inspire very different actions.

For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this "support" for our system, or should we regard this non-free program like any other -- as an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?

Talkback

The problem is, the majority of people are like myself, not intent on disappearing up our own anal passages, but trying to earn the money that feeds our children. "Free software" and "community" are fine concepts, and I will happily encourage them while it does not impact negatively on my ability to pay the bills. Unfortunately, I see your vision as putting programmers out of work at worst, or making them change into lower paid support personnel at best.
All religions should die eventually, even those that limit the scope of their promises.
Perhaps Mr. Stallman would care to contribute an article that addresses how developers get paid for the work that they do?

via Facebook 6 January, 2004 11:39
Reply

Biggest load of hippy babble I've ever read. Why is software different from any other manufactured product? Why after 20 years of free software aren’t we over run by top quality free software? File under nice idea.

via Facebook 6 January, 2004 13:34
Reply

"Why is software different from any other manufactured product?" - because there's no EULA on your transistor radio that forbids you from taking it apart to see how it works.

On the other hand, I can't agree with Stallman. I believe everyone should have the freedom to choose 'non-free' software if they want to. Bringing in ideology to override pragmatism is not helpful.

via Facebook 7 January, 2004 09:23
Reply

Where should this goal of "freedom" end?

I'm employed by a major insurer in developing leading edge e-commerce systems which will give us competitive advantage.

Is Mr Stallman saying that we should "free" this code and give it to our competitors?

I'm also an avid games player who not only buys games regularly, but also pays a monthly subscription to a paid-for online game. Without myself and others paying for those games, they would simply not be available.

Whilst I agree with the aims of creating a viable free software community, there IS a place for proprietary and paid-for software.

Respectfully, Mr Stallman needs to come down from his Ivory tower.

via Facebook 7 January, 2004 10:17
Reply

Free software is never free the costs are just 'different'. its my experience that 'free' software is often more complicated to install and maintain, the cost here is my time.

via Facebook 8 January, 2004 13:37
Reply

'Free' as in 'freedom', not 'beer'.

You've entirely missed the point.

'Free' in 'free software' means 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in beer'. That means you have the freedom to look at it and find out how it works, and to distribute it to others for them to do the same. It is not about monetary cost. You are allowed to sell 'free' software for a fee. (But you can't prevent others from giving it away.)

via Facebook 9 January, 2004 10:43
Reply

Read Stallman's definition of 'free software' at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. I happen to disagree with his insistance that this is a moral issue, but please let's at least get the facts right.

via Facebook 9 January, 2004 10:53
Reply

Anonymous said :

"'Free' in 'free software' means 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in beer'. That means you have the freedom to look at it and find out how it works, and to distribute it to others for them to do the same. It is not about monetary cost. You are allowed to sell 'free' software for a fee. (But you can't prevent others from giving it away.)"

With respect, I think the point has been missed by this poster.

I posted about computer games. They take millions of pounds in development costs. Obviously the companies investing in this only do so to make a return on their capital.

Why would they do this if the first person who bought the game could GIVE it to all their friends?

They wouldn't, and the free/open source market cannot compete with the production values of the professional games market. (Not least things like licensing of films/TV shows, using actual actors voices plus their likenesses, etc, all need to be paid for).

As I said, proprietary and paid for software DOES have its place, however laudable the aims of free software are.

via Facebook 12 January, 2004 11:08
Reply

In response to a previous poster:

"Where should this goal of "freedom" end?
I'm employed by a major insurer in developing leading edge e-commerce systems which will give us competitive advantage.
Is Mr Stallman saying that we should "free" this code and give it to our competitors?" "

The main ideea behind the free-sofware philosophy is the sharing of your code. As you probably know, to develop a complicated software system (ERP for example) you must divide it in modules so you can control better it. Now, just think that you can use many of these modules, that are already written (GPL licensed). You are not forced to reinvent the wheel. In this way your system can be developed quickly.
Now you will sell your program not as a product, but as a service. Your customers will pay you a regular fee for mentenance for example (or improvements). Ok, since your code is freely available in public domain, your competitors may get it, may sell it, but don't forget that any improvements will be also available for you, so in this way you can later can sell a better product.
There are places for everybody...in the market. You will gain advantages through marketing. If you are a better seller..you will be paid as well.
Take a look at RedHat or Caldera. They are earning money in this way, with this business
model.

"[...] I'm also an avid games player who not only buys games regularly, but also pays a monthly subscription to a paid-for online game. Without myself and others paying for those games, they would simply not be available. [...]"

Ok, so do I :).
To pay for a subscription for an online-gaime doesn't mean that that game it is not free (free like in freedom). Since the sources are available and licensed under GPL. GPL does not mention anything about economical part. You talk about hardware and technical support needs of these companies. Sure, the company is right in asking money for playing online that game. But, they must make public the source code behind their system. And this is not a bad thing. They will continue to ear money as well.


Will programmers starve?
No, definitely, they will not. (just my two cents).
In addition take a look at this link, and I hope that all of you will think different in the future:
[http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/jobs.php]

And don't forget. This is our world, nobody can control it, not either giants like M$. They are not have the right to.

Best regards from Romania.

via Facebook 26 February, 2004 01:56
Reply

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your ZDNet UK account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy. Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Community FAQ

Get ZDNet UK's daily newsletter

Enter your email address to sign up

ZDNet UK Live

UnderINK

I agree with the previous commenter wholeheartedly. I couldn't say it better myself. This is very 'Big Brother'. And while I agree with protecting...

3 hours ago by UnderINK on European e-identity plan to be unveiled this month
Simon Bisson and Mary Branscombe

Nice to see that Turing's idea of a general purpose computer doing once-hardware-powered tasks in software is now universal ;-) Mary

8 hours ago by Simon Bisson and Mary Branscombe on Software with everything
Jason Burchell

seriously now. I've only bothered to read a small bit of the comments. do me and the rest of the world a favour. stop saying it does not work or...

12 hours ago by Jason Burchell via Facebook on Music industry negotiating over 24-bit downloads
Philip Charles Cohen

Read about it and weep, John Donahoe ... In addition to Visa’s V.me, there is now MasterCard’s PayPass digital wallet soon to arrive; another...

16 hours ago by Philip Charles Cohen via Facebook on PayPal takes phone-based payments to the high street
apexwm

Leslie Satenstein : Where have you ever seen Mozilla even mention this? Firefox is the most popular browser in the GNU/Linux OS, so I don't see...

17 hours ago by apexwm on Firefox rapid release improves Fedora Linux
songmaster

SHleG: Do you remember building a clockwork scorpion kit (I'm pretty sure I have a photo of it somewhere) — I think it was called something like...

19 hours ago by songmaster on Software with everything
Chris Wortman

Good I love Yahoo! Their search engine is getting better than Google as of late. I find more of what I want on the first page, and usually within...

19 hours ago by Chris Wortman via Facebook on Linux Mint 13 ramps up for KDE release
PatrickG

openhgs has made the point for Windows 8 multiple monitors without realising it! With Windows 7 you have to switch the mouse and so your focus...

21 hours ago by PatrickG on Windows 8 could speed multi-monitor uptake
Leslie Satenstein

Mozilla has threatened to stop supporting Linux. I guess that UBUNTU is going with another browser. I indicated that if Mozilla stops supporting...

22 hours ago by Leslie Satenstein via Facebook on Firefox rapid release improves Fedora Linux
Andy Bolstridge

Much as I abhor Microsoft's licensing practices, this is almost certainly down to purchasing IT equipment via 3rd party consultants - you get the...

22 hours ago by Andy Bolstridge via Facebook on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
Jack Schofield

@openhgs Windows users have had multiple desktops since Linus started writing Linux. They just haven't shipped as standard because not enough...

2 days ago by Jack Schofield on Windows 8 could speed multi-monitor uptake
Jack Schofield

@Phil at Cloud4 What, Microsoft gets £1,200 per PC and £1,622 per server? Gosh, I'm amazed....

2 days ago by Jack Schofield on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
craigsc

You guys have no idea what is going on at Autonomy. Autonomy could have been a much more profitable organization. The sales operations at Autonomy...

2 days ago by craigsc on HP cuts 27,000 staff as Autonomy chief Lynch leaves
Moley

How does this impact on dual or multi booting? Seems to me to more or less prohibit this, from Windows 8 anyway. Will Grub 2 recognise Windows 8,...

2 days ago by Moley on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
apexwm

I don't understand why there cannot be a slight pause during the boot process so the user can press a key. Many operating systems do this, even if...

2 days ago by apexwm on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
Gavin Goodman

You can now buy the Xi3 modular computer in the UK at http://www.ocdistribution.com . This can be bought with the Tand3m software, pricing and...

2 days ago by Gavin Goodman on CES 2012: Xi3 microSERV3R
Phil at Cloud4

I agree: Mike Lynch can clearly build a business and manage strategy. I suspect the exit of Mike is more likely the end of a planned handover...

2 days ago by Phil at Cloud4 on HP cuts 27,000 staff as Autonomy chief Lynch leaves
Phil at Cloud4

This is unbeleivable government wastage with only one winner... Microsoft 1 - Tax payer Nil!

2 days ago by Phil at Cloud4 on 6 million wasted licences and £1,200 PCs: welcome to government IT
Mispam

So what do you do when you can't boot into windows? Why can't I just hold Shift while I power up instead of having to boot into windows and click a...

2 days ago by Mispam on Windows 8 start-up speed forces USB boot workaround
apexwm

I've also seen that Mac OS X for Intel machines is supposed to run in VirtualBox, which would also be a nice solution. I've never tried it though.

2 days ago by apexwm on xTreme Triple Booting: Linux, Mac & Windows