There are a number of people in the open-source pantheon, among them Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond. However, Richard Stallman, as author of the GPL and one of the most prolific authors in the open-source movement, certainly fills the role of Zeus. Perens and Raymond serve many purposes, though a number of their recent writings seem aimed at channelling the open-source community's ire towards an enemy (usually Microsoft, who is portrayed as an evil Zelig that they inevitably see standing in the shadows in photo opportunities with open-source critics). Stallman, however, rarely dirties his hands with such things, leaving him free to operate in the ethereal realm of open-source philosophy.
Stallman serves his purpose well, even if I often disagree with him. What motivated me to write this response, however, were six simple words included in his recent article: Free software does not mean "gratis".
Anyone who has followed my ZDNet writings knows that I am sceptical about open-source as a foundation for revenue generation. If you are writing a utility that is designed to be used for free, as in gratis, then open-source is a great model to drive usage. In fact, that's what I did with my CLR Proc Container freeware, a product from which I had no intention of generating any revenue (though I used an MIT open-source licence so that both proprietary and open-source developers might adapt and extend it). If you are trying to generate revenue, however, you are fighting against a structural issue in your business model, one that gives the recipe by which you made your product to competitors as well as consumers. The problem is deepened through use of a GPL licence, which is currently the most popular open-source licence.
In short, most open-source (and all GPL) software is of the free, as in gratis, variety, because the source code is available for all to see. Furthermore, Stallman's encouragement to replace proprietary software with free alternatives would complicate matters for makers of open-source software, as it would remove one of the few areas from which open-source software generates revenue: licensing the code to makers of proprietary software.
Talkback
I am free to modify my schwinn after I have bought it.
Most proprietary software is not guaranteed suitable for any particular use and is not able to be modified so it can be suitable.
If I want to change the gear ratio of my schwinn so i can ride up steeper hills and change the handlebars to suit me I am FREE (as in freedom) to do that.
Yes, you are free to change your Schwinn. You are also free to create new software for Windows. Unfortunately, Schwinn might not be the best example, since bikes tend to be made from off the shelf parts, and there really isn't much that isn't obvious about it. Perhaps an advanced mountain bike has some special shock absorbers, and you don't get with the instruction manual details of how they made those shock absorbers. You could reverse engineer it, but you could do the same with proprietary software.
A better example is cold syrup, or a cake mix you buy in the store. You get "ingredients" on the box, but they don't give you the recipe. In other words, they don't tell you how to compete with them. You don't get the "schematics."
It's all about choice. I choose to use free software because I enjoy the amount of customization it affords me. Developers are not forced to use the GPL, they do so willingly. If you don't agree with Stallman, great. But I wonder why you care so much; is Stallman forcing you to do something you don't want? Are you disturbed that his ideas don't fit with your conception of the world? Agree with him or not, I'm glad he's vocal if just to provide an alternative to corporate whoredom.
> It's all about choice. I choose to
> use free software because I
> enjoy the amount of customization
> it affords me.
Fine. I like Gruyere cheese. Should I then go about and say that anyone who eats anything but Gruyere is bad, evil, and not worthy to share the table with Gruyere cheese eaters?
My point is: you will buy based on access to source code. That, however, is a subjective value choice. For you, that matters, but it doesn't make your choice objectively better or more moral than anyone else's.
> If you don't agree with Stallman, great.
> But I wonder why you care so much; is
> Stallman forcing you to do something
> you don't want?
I don't know, why does Stallman care so much about the fact that proprietary software exists in the world? Does it affect him? I'm not saying that we should ONLY have proprietary software in the world, and I make that pretty clear in the article. In contrast, Stallman is saying that we should ONLY have open source, and probably GPL, code in the world. That's a pretty extreme response, and I responded with moderation, not a statement that said open source should be wiped from the face of the earth.
> Stallman is saying that we should ONLY
> have open source, and probably GPL, code
> in the world. That's a pretty extreme
> response, and I responded with
> moderation, not a statement that said open
> source should be wiped from the face of
> the earth.
To break apart a quote from Scrooge, 'Marley, methinks there's more of misrepresentation than of moderation in your words'.
Stallman has a very specific way of writing. He speaks of 'we should do this' or 'we should have that.'Have you never wondered who the 'we' is that he's talking about?
I've read LOTS of Stallman's writing. I can assure you that, for RMS, 'we' are largely the users. Sure, many developers (who are, after all, users, too) support the user rights movement -- hence we have a community: The Free Software Community (TM). Stallman states this in a clear and straightforward manner at nearly every opportunity. In fact, he wrote that the entire goal of the Free Software Movement is to ensure that the needs of users are elevated to equivalent to the rights of developers in the software social contract. When he says 'there should be no non-free software,' he means that we, as a community who values freedom, should have no truck with it. No one suggests we pillory Windows developers in the village square.
Stallman does not want to force you, or anyone else, to stop writing proprietary code. He merely suggests that 'we', the people who believe in freedom, will not participate as the end-user market for it.
This raises an interesting question about support.
This is a well thought out article. While in principle you can charge for 'free software', in practise your customers can always get it gratis elsewhere. Carroll admitted the possibility of earning revenue by charging for support, but I doubt whether even this is possible in Stallman's world.
Source code is effectively knowledge - the blueprints that tell you (or the computer) how to do something. But that effectively is what support also is - it is providing knowledge that the customer doesn't have for himself. If proprietory software is bad, then so is proprietory knowledge. To put it another way - you shouldn't be allowed to keep secrets about the software. Under Stallman's philosophy, anyone providing support should be obliged to share his support knowledge in the same way that the source code is shared. Which means that anyone else could (and will) provide the same support gratis.
I think the Open Source people have got it nearer the mark.
Some more clarifications..................................
> In fact, he wrote that the entire
> goal of the Free Software Movement
> is to ensure that the needs of users
> are elevated to equivalent to the
> rights of developers in the software
> social contract.
That's doublespeak. It's a fancy way of saying "what's important for developers is really important for the general public, and we are thus HELPING those less enlightened customers to get what they really need." In other words, the needs/wants of (some) developers are being made the standard. I don't agree with that in the least.
Regarding pillorying, I'm not talking about open source developers not sharing a bench in the lunchroom with proprietary developers. I'm attacking the premise that its a good idea for all software to be free (as in gratis, which as I explain is the ONLY thing software as such can be in a GPL universe). That kills software companies. To some, that's no big deal, but I think it's dangerous because software companies are the best entities to integrate new technology in ways customers can use.
A world where the IT world is relatively static can expect to have LOTS of open source and free software. In a fast-moving, dynamic IT market (and I still think it is, and my monday article gives one example), however, you need lots of experimentation, which takes money, and LOTS of close interaction with real customers. Open source, being mostly a creation of highly-technical volunteers, has had a harder time of meeting regular user needs.
Open source makes sense to me in core code that doesn't change all the time. TCP/IP would make little sense as proprietary code. In areas where there's lots of flux, though, we NEED proprietary code to generate the revenue to grease the skids that bring technology into the hand of normal users.
Open source is good. But just as you shouldn't eat nothing but Gruyere cheese, you shouldn't have nothing but open source / GPL...and that IS what Stallman advocates.
John Carrol revaricated in the following manner:
> That's doublespeak. It's a fancy way of
> saying "what's important for developers is
> really important for the general public, and
> we are thus HELPING those less
> enlightened customers to get what they
> really need." In other words, the
> needs/wants of (some) developers are
> being made the standard. I don't agree with
> that in the least.
There is no way an intelligent person could have construed your conclusion from the quote I gave. The quote says precisely that the goal is to "elevate the users' needs" to be [b]equal[/b] to those the developers." So, it is the needs/wants of the [b]users][/b] that are being made the standard. Good lord, read the bleedin' quote, mate!!!!! Apparently, we are to assume that, when RMS writes something, his words mean what John Carroll says they mean rather than what the writings of Richard Stallman themselves may say.
You know, John, you sound glib and reasonable but I'm beginning to think you're actually wearing a tin-foil hat.
> I'm attacking the premise that its a good idea
> for all software to be free <snip> That kills
> software companies.
Even if this were true (a point I'm not conceding, here,) why should that matter to software [b]users[/b], John? Why? You keep saying that it should matter but you provide no evidence that it should. If users are provided with inexpensive software that does what they want (i.e. built to users' specifications) why should we care how many software companies there are? There will be enough companies to produce the software that people will adopt, no? You're always on about free market and let the market decide. Let's let the market decide... You seem to insist that we should choose proprietary software whether or not it's better for freedom. All I ask is why? Concede, for a moment, that freedom is the prefered option. If then, what? That's the only way you can refute an opponent's argument: to show it to be logically inconsistent.
> To some, that's no big deal, but I think it's
> dangerous because software companies
> are the best entities to integrate new
> technology in ways customers can use.
Yes, blahblahblah, In your opinion, it's dangerous. We've all read that too many times. You've [b]NEVER[/b] posted [b]anything[/b] that wasn't strictly your opinion. Then, when people point out, repeatedly, that your opinion is full of holes, well, you come out with a new article and make all the same absurd claims over there, abandoning the tough questions here. Your strategy is transparent, John: give it up.
> you need lots of experimentation, which
> takes money, and LOTS of close interaction
> with real customers. Open source, being
> mostly a creation of highly-technical
> volunteers, has had a harder time of
> meeting regular user needs.
Once again, you've spouted this stuff many times and have yet to post one piece of evidence to support your argument other than more opinion. Pray tell, John, what evidence do you have that proprietary software is more responsive to changes in the marketplace? What evidence can you provide that "experimentation," as you call it, is expensive and, don't miss this part, [b]needs[/b] to be expensive (i.e. can't be accomplished elsewise.)
The rest of your post is just more of the same. News flash: "Carroll says that proprietary software is important, in his opinion" Yeah, like we want to read that article again.
Why don't you just set up a batch job to send in the same article once a month or whatever it is you post, here.
To the previous poster..............................................
Before I start, could you make up some nonsense handle and let ZDNet display it? At least I would be able to say "To so and so." As things stand, everyone who has posted is is anonymous, and it COULD be all the same person, but it might not be.
Regarding the statement I called "doublespeak:"
> In fact, he wrote that the entire
> goal of the Free Software Movement
> is to ensure that the needs of users
> are elevated to equivalent to the rights
> of developers in the software social
> contract.
Sounds uplifting, doesn't it, and like developers are championing the needs of the common man. However, that is EXACTLY its intent. It doesn't make the claim any more useful, however, or any more valid.
Imagine you have a bunch of people living on the coast who believe they have a right to government-provided boats. It's harder to convince everyone that they NEED boats, particularly if they live in Des Moines, Iowa, where there isn't much need for such a thing. A good way to phrase a special-interest demand, therefore, is to do the the Free Software Movement
> is to ensure that the needs of users
> are elevated to equivalent to the rights
> of developers in the software social
> contract.:
following:
"the entire goal of the Free Boat movement is to ensure the needs of average citizens are elevated in the social contract to the equivalent of the rights of people who live on the coast"
It's a way of making a special-interest desire seem more generally applicable, and the advocates like they are championing the god-given rights of all.
That's a common way for open source advocates to speak, and ESPECIALLY Mr. Stallman. Hey, it's effective...but it's useful to cut through the doublespeak to consider whether what he is saying is REALLY something that all the world needs or wants.
> You seem to insist that we should
> choose proprietary software whether
> or not it's better for freedom.
You're starting from the presumption that proprietary software is actually limiting of your freedom. I argued in your article that it isn't, and that your PERCEPTION that it limits your freedom is YOURS, not something inherent in the nature of proprietary software.
> Then, when people point out, repeatedly,
> that your opinion is full of holes, well,
> you come out with a new article and
> make all the same absurd claims over
> there, abandoning the tough questions
> here.
So my opinions are OBJECTIVELY full of holes? Obviously, I didn't agree, or I wouldn't continue to use the line of reasoning I use in my articles. You speak as if reality is some platonic form that you and Richard Stallman have some special channel into. Well, it's not. I DON'T abandon the tought questions, and if I might add, how many other commentators bother to dive into the talkbacks and battle it out? I'm willing to face my critics. I'm not willing to be ABUSED by them, but that's a different issue. Critics who make arguments (as you, for the most part, are doing) I am perfectly willing to confront. Just don't presume that I must necessarily be convinced of your arguments.
I'm sorry, John. Truly. I hope you don't feel offended or slighted by my comments. I posted two of those previous contributions: the ones that say 'philospher' from 'Canada.'
Stallman says at every occasion that his goal is to benefit the users of software. You call this doublespeak and say that he's really out to benefit developers, hidden under the guise of helping users. Your Free Boat example, I fear, has failed to clarify this for me. Precisely, in what way, do you find that Stallman's activities aid developers at the expense of users? It's a simple question. This is your claim. Please provide evidence to support it.
Let me add that I am impressed with your willingness to 'duke it out' in the talkbacks. I applaud you for this. In fact, that's the only reason I read what you write. I want to make it clear that, in spite of the fact that I find your arguments wanting in many respects, I think you're very courageous for defending them in the talkbacks.
I suppose the only thing I was attempting to impress upon you is that, over the years, many people have presented evidence to refute you. Just as, in my previous post, I asked two fundamental questions of you to which you failed to reply. I understand you have another article coming out Monday. I imagine that your critics will have to follow you there to post the same questions, again. I mean no offense by this. I'm simply stating that this is the pattern I've found you to follow.
BTW, for the sake of clarity, these are the two fundamental questions I've posted that you saw fit not to tackle:
1. If we assume, for the moment, that proprietary software damages freedom, why should we continue to support it? IOW, what are the benefits of proprietary software that you feel would mitigate any purported damage to freedom? I know you feel that it doesn't damage freedom. We've heard that many times. I'm asking, if it did, what arguments would you make for it?
2. You've stated over and over again that proprietary software is better able to respond to volatile and uncertain market conditions than is free software. What evidence do you have for this? I know that you've said that 'experimentation' is expensive and that only proprietary software can meet this. If that's true, what evidence do you have that experimentation is expensive, generally, and, more specifically, that experimentation needs to be expensive?
Cheers!
To NNTZ, the conehead responds............................
Sorry, that's just my recognition that my british picture makes me look like I have a pointed head. Hope that doesn't preincline Dilbert fans to view me a certain way.
> 1. If we assume, for the moment,
> that proprietary software damages
> freedom, why should we continue
> to support it? IOW, what are the
> benefits of proprietary software
> that you feel would mitigate any
> purported damage to freedom?
If the president was an alien, would it be wise to allow him to continue to lead? If gravity worked in the reverse, how would you build your cities. I'm not a science fiction author.
Okay, maybe that is too glib, but you're essentially asking that if I start from your foundation beliefs, how would I respond (if god is the angry god of the old testament, how should one guide one's life...okay, you get my point)? Here's a stab at it: do a cost/benefit analysis to figure out whether the "cost" of lack of freedom is truly outweighed by the "benefits" of a system that generates revenue for software companies. I think you would find that MOST people would care little about access to source code (just as people in Des Moines don't care about government-provided boats). In other words, the costs would be minimal, whereas the gains - a system that enables software companies to conduct lots of R&D and engage in close contact with - customers, provides a lot of benefits.
> 2. You've stated over and over again
> that proprietary software is better able
> to respond to volatile and uncertain
> market conditions than is free software.
> What evidence do you have for this? I
> know that you've said that
> 'experimentation' is expensive and
> that only proprietary software can
> meet this. If that's true, what evidence
> do you have that experimentation is
> expensive, generally, and, more
> specifically, that experimentation
> needs to be expensive?
Experimentation is expensive because in young markets you get a whole bunch of competing players all of whom attempt to figure out the best way to meet consumers needs. If one company were to provide all the varieties of software found in free markets as they figure out what customers want, it would be prohibitively expensive. Parallel companies, however, try slightly different angles in an attempt to attract clients. The one that wins does the best job of meeting customers needs, with a few also rans there to meet special needs that proved in sufficient quantities as to support a specialist company serving their needs.
Furthermore, witness the dififculties open source software has had in meeting the needs of "normal" users (read: not you or me). Open source software tends to be oriented around the needs of technical users, mostly because it is built by volunteers who are doing the things that interest them. That's find and good, but most users aren't the kinds of people who donate to the Linux development effort.
Software companies have a vested interest in catering to the needs of other people. It doens't mean they are perfect (they're still programmers, and thus still weird), but in the presence of a market which enables such compajnies to make money, multiple companies can provide the necessary experimentation required to really discern what those customers need.
Obviously, this isn't a definitive answer to your question, but it's a start.
I agree with John.
Most users are not that interested in seeing the source code, I can see both points of view.
When I was at uni doing my computer science degree, getting stuff to finish my programming project, like an ocr mechanism and a web browser for java, I used open sourced code. It was handy I could see the code and integrate it (referenced to the developers). This was good because I was learning and researching a solution to a problem I encountered in my work placement.
However in terms of my current job where I deal with users in frontline support in a small company where I have to do everything IT related, properiety software is handy, there is a loss of freedom, but this is dictacted by what the users find easiest for them to use and do their jobs. Sometimes I'll find something better, I have to consider alot of factors though, not just things like does the software do the job that the user needs it for?
I have to consider its usability (will I end up going to that user every half hour as they cannot understand how to use it?) I also consider how available is the technical support (can I access simple soloutions on the web, what are their support hours, is it uk based, or is it regional or purely US)
I would say that it is up to the users and people who are in close contact to the users to decide. Some users dont care and dont know about these issues, some dont want to know. I cant help feeling that some of the attitudes spouted by some open source advocates (not Stallman though) are a bit patronising and feel they know what is best for every user. But then again so do propriety software companies. Getting user requirements is always a bind.
Rather than arguing about what is right or wrong, dont we need to talk to the users face to face and see what they do rather than just assume that we know better?
Never heard of Lindows...
Lindows is based on GPL software, but it is not "free." Sure, you can download all the source for the varous parts and compile them yourself, then sit through hours of editing conf files to make sure everything works like it does in the packaged CD, but why? For the price of an antiquated hard drive I can have a CD that "just works" and I can download all the toys I want from their website - "for free" (so long as I pay for a subscription).
Lindows has taken a lot of heat for their marketing approach (and for their founder's rep) but all in all they have a pretty nice installer and a good idea. the fact Lindows isn't "everywhere" does not mean Lindows has failed, it only means others (with a couple decades head start) have succeeded more.
Does this mean Lindows would be doomed if "everyone, everywhere" followed rank step behind Stallman? MAYBE. so what? It's not going to happen and basing arguments upon that hypothesis has as much logic as trying to convince everyone they'll burn in hell for thinking naughty thoughts.
And it's obvious Mr. Carroll jsut does NOT get open source at all. Open source is absolutely, in NO WAY, like "music" - rap, or otherwise. Try basing a popular release upon some UNLICENSED samples and see how far you get when the record company hauls you into court for copyright infringement.
No one's life (or even their security) depends upon someone being able to license the chorus from some 70's soul track. Music is an avocation, a coping mechanism, and even a profession for many people, but one thing it's NOT is a tool of utility. MILLIONS of people rely upon software - TOOLS - to store, organize, and exhange their most personal information, and even their thoughts. It has been proven time and again that proprietary tools and secrets do not guard against intrusions into these privacies.
The way to a secure future for us all - consumers and publishers alike - is through openness. To ensure that no few "superusers" have control of the only keys to the kingdom we will invent. Just as mainstream publishers have the right to protect their creations, so too must "users" have that right - for in the end, we are all now publishers, and our privacy and security MUST be our legacy.
From the writings I've read on this subject, the assumption is always just 'software'. That's like saying all 'commodities' should be ordered from catalogues. Clearly some are more conducive to the model than others. What GPL and similar have given us is another model for software distribution - nothing more, nothing less.
It gives developers a legal method to do works of charity, and, in many cases, provides us with access to powerful tools we wouldn't otherwise touch. End users get to save money, and developers get to learn how the staple software things (OS, webserver, BBS etc.) are built, and improve their skills and possibly the product.
Clearly, there are some types of software that are not suited to it, either because they're niche products, or they're leading edge products with R&D dev costs to pay off. Remember, Unix was around for 20 years before Linux came along...
I always find these conversations amusing. I use a computer at work and when I am at home. At work the company technician sets it up per the company requirements. I don't have any input. At home I occasionally use Word to write a letter and I occasionally cruise the net. I could care less who makes my software. Open source or Proprietary – who cares? I don’t and neither does the other billions of people that use software. At work I don’t pay for it and at home I will find the most economical way to buy software. If it is free – it’even better. The only one’s that care about this are the 200,000 computer geeks in the world. No offense meant - but it is true. I think you guys all need to take your heads out of your keyboards for a while and enjoy the benefits of fresh air down by the seaside. It has been open source for years.
The "Open Source" debate has many sides, and usually discussions about the subject try to view every side of it. I like the article in that it is a simple statement: Open Source (or, more precisely, the GPL) is a pretty uncertain base to base a business on. I tend to agree.
However, there are many other issues, ranging from "I shouldn't have to pay for anything" via "I don't want to pay for something which I am explicitly forbidden to tinker with" up to "I can't read your document because I don't have the right tool, which even if I wanted to pay for it, wouldn't run on my platform, nor will anybody tell me how to read your document my own software, and it is also illegal to reverse-engineer."
The latter is, in my opinion, a much more important issue than whether someone, somewhere is making money off a particular program or not.
Unfortunately, all these aspects usually get mixed up during discussions.
John,
Real freedom in this arena means that those creators who want to make their source code available -- under whatever conditiions they can negotiate with users -- should be free to do so. Those who do not should not be cajoled or coerced to do so.
Stallman's philosophy sounds like the mirror image of Microsoft. Exclusively embracing either position doesn't sound like freedom to me.
As a PC user, sometimes I use free (gratis) software, and sometimes I do not. Why should my chices be restricted for ideological or monopolisitic reasons?