Hacker News Reader

Comment by jayliew | Hacker News Reader

The world seems like a very binary and black-and-white place for RMS. Everything non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good.

Is reality really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray, though?

View on HN

When it comes to source code, yes. Are you able to view the entirety of the code running the systems that control your information and operations? The answer to that question cannot be a shade of gray.

RMS has been proven more correct with each year that passes. More and more of the technologists responsible for our most significant innovations have expressed concerns about the control that large firms have gained over their users. This control is only possible through "non-free" source code, and is a guaranteed consequence when we allow the practice of distributing closed-source systems.

rms and the GPL focus on distribution, yet the Internet has enabled large firms to gain control without distributing their software, or even while distributing FOSS software. Perhaps tomorrow Google open-sources the JS executed by google.com in their open source browser, and it makes no difference, because the important bits - what data they retain about users - are not distributed.

Software we never run on our devices may yet control us.

AGPL tries to solve some of these problems, but fundamentally any service which controls and operates on your data on a server you don't own cannot fundamentally be free. RMS calls such services SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute).

So while distributed systems under AGPL still protect your freedom, AGPL of a SaaSS (like Google Docs) are non-free because you cannot change the software running on the server (and of course you shouldn't be able to -- because that would violate the freedom of the administrator). SaaSS is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom.

(And this is something that RMS has made clear arguments about. He cares more than just about distribution.)

http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white....

I agree of, non-free + proprietary == bad, whereas the opposite == good, but it is not the only consideration. Many computer software can be good or bad regardless of such thing, but free software is still a better idea than nonfree software. If program has some problem (e.g. malware, or a feature doesn't work the way you want it to be, or whatever), you can hopefully to correct it! That is why free software is good and nonfree software isn't good.

But, it is correct, reality is not really so neatly categorized into binary outcomes with no shades of gray (and other colours).

He sees free software principles as being on the same level as internationally recognized human rights. Sure, there could be certain cases where a right is "overridden": judicial gag orders, imprisoning convicts, eminent domain. But those should be exceptional, require justification, and follow predetermined rules.

Software is either open or closed what would the gray even be?

Linux with a video card.

Since usually you can always add open parts to a system, the question is not if there are open parts, but if there are (substantial) closed parts.

> Linux with a video card.

Assuming you are speaking about a recent video card from AMD or Nvidia, then that system has substantial closed parts, which are unreviewable and unmodifiable by the user and/or owner of the device.

He means the binary blobs.

I don't think jayliew was doubting what the definition of open source is but rather whether software is good because its open source and bad because it's closed.

If someone thinks it is as black and white as this then it has clearly become ideological rather than rational.

Ideological and rational are not in opposition.

Also, he doesn't think all software is good just because it's foss; it can be bad for other reasons. But all non-foss software is bad, because it violates the rights of users.

I don't see the problem with being this consistent. If I say that all non-consensual sex is bad, am I an irrational ideologue too?

Ideological and rational are not in opposition all the time, but they're not congruent all the time either.

I don't fully agree that all non-foss are bad, or that all foss are good. You can find exceptions to the rule either way.

I think the helpful perspective is to take a step back and look at the whole system from a macro perspective. Based on traction, which do you think is "better". I think it really depends on the use-case.

There's a lot of shitty foss software out there, that is just plain unusable because developers like geeking out over code but UX + UI polish are non-technical problems and thus ignored.

This. I think when you have one lens through which you view the world, as opposed to having multiple lenses to pick from, which you swap out to apply the most beneficial lens from which to view the problem .. then this is no different than using the one hammer you have because all problems look like a nail.

I do think there are some software that in reality, for most people (including large swathes of non-technical people), work better in a for-profit model (which is usually closed source).

But there are some things that work better as open source.

I think it really depends on the fundamental problem (i.e. ends) the software (i.e. means) is trying to accomplish.

I personally do not think you can categorically say one is better than the other, because it really depends on the issue.

Why isn't there an open source Google search, that works better than Google?

If we can open source our encryption algorithms because that ostensibly makes it more secure overall, why can't we just open source all our algorithms for spam filtering, especially to the spammers themselves?

If you look at all the most vibrant communities online, are they closed source or open source? (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, HN itself) ... vs. say, mailing lists, usenet, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com