Liberating software - interview with Richard Stallman
rt.com
rt.com
Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis.
Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used. That "free software" is gratis is a very common misconception. Stallman could do a thousand interviews, continually correcting this misconception, or he could realise that the FSF's name itself is spreading it.
"Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).
The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license).
I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.
If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.
People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license.
"f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is."
As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free.
This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.
I also think its crazy that people send you hate mail. That right there exemplifies the sense of entitlement they have. Don't get me wrong, I love free software, use it, and I release code occasionally but I'm not about to starve because Stallman says I have to choose either or. Free or proprietary, you must choose one is the message out of the RMS camp.
Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...
Why do we not want corporations in control? Does using their software give them real control? How so and how much?
Now once you've answered those questions you then must ask yourself, if the creators of the software used by government agencies has the ability to control those agencies then who should be "in control"?
If only free software was used like Stallman wants then we're just shifting control from one group to another. What's to say that Stallman and the FSF can and will only do good?
Make no mistake here, even though Linux and other free software is driven by the community that doesn't mean there aren't cases where a single developer works alone and releases something as GPL. In addition, while you can always add to a free project the developer has final say of what makes it in and what to leave out. You can put out your own version but if you don't have enough clout then it's unlikely your better version gets used. If Linux was used in government then Stallman has control. If they use Red Hat then they have control. I think Red Hat is an interesting example because while they're free they can still be just as manipulative as any large corporation if they wanted to.
Doesn't it make sense that if you don't want anyone to be "in control" of government agencies through the use of certain software then those agencies would need to roll their own at every level. In the end we're all beholden to the developer whether the software is free or proprietary.
And if software meets that condition - free for modification and redistribution - then the user (e.g. a government agency) is free to deviate from the maintainer's direction and modify it for internal use.
The whole point of Free Software is that you are not beholden to the developer--you are always free to modify the code yourself or hire somebody else to do it. The government could even maintain their own distro and do everything the way they want. With proprietary software, there are two issues: they are not allowed to modify it legally and it is not practical because you only have a binary.
In fact, the whole point of the GPL is to ensure that not only the original developer does not have absolute control over the source, but that other developers can't do so either.
Now, all the points about these issues being mitigated and possibly eradicated are totally right on. What I'm saying though is that this freedom is only truly an advantage if you take advantage of it. Someone who uses free software but doesn't inspect the source, modify it to their liking, and generally just trusts it might as well have gone the proprietary route. That freedom it gives you is essemtially useless unless you're exercising it to your advantage. Granted, I'll give you that you can pretty much trust most major free software but all I'm saying is that you never know, you could have a back door or spyware in the free stuff and won't know it unless you check. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's safe. I'm wondering how many people are using free software to avoid these pitfalls but never look under the hood and just take the developer's word for it that it's secure. "It's FOSS so it must be secure, right?" is how many may think.
No external source is in control of your free software. For this reason governments should always use completely free software. As the software is free they don't have to worry about the whims of Linus or anyone else, most governments actually have their own OS forks like Red Flag Linux in the people's republic of China, Red Star OS in the DPRK, Nova in Cuba, Canaima in Venezuela, etc.
I'm playng devil's advocate again because I'm all for free software but we can't ignore the problems it has just because we're blinded by some allegiance we have to either Stallmam or the greater FSF.
So while we may have a lot more freedom than the alternatives doesn't the requirement to be GPL compliant actually restrict some of our freedoms? Specifically, shouldnt we be free to choose a proprietary technology and not be treated like children?
Spoiler alert!
Best part of the interview: Journalist: Are you married? RMS: No, I'm not. Journalist: Well, I am, I don't want to be free.
The other idea I'd disagree with is how he says free (as in liberty) software can be sold. In theory it certainly can have a price tag but when the source is just out in the open there's no incentive to use the paid version as someone will certainly put out some slightly modified free (gratis) version. That's the bulk of why proprietary software exists in the first place.
One more thing that irked me was that Stallman implies that only proprietary software makers will put malicious code in their products. Really? So everyone who's on board the Free Software Movement has only good will towards man and would never dare try to harm another user for their own ends?
In the end I think Stallman makes some good points but unfortunately he ends up sounding like an ideologue and at times even a conspiracy theorist. That turns me off. If he's all about freedom then he should also accept that we have the freedom to choose free or proprietary these days and there are people who choose no free software because we don't mind being tied to a certain ecosystem. I love my Mac and I so far, while Lion does treat me like an idiot at times, don't mind the "restrictions" at all. In fact I barely notice them because they're just not important to me. That's my choice, the same choice everyone else has. I also have a Linux box which I love for different reasons. In the end I'm able to have it both says and I think everyone does.
Quite clearly Free Software as a source of income works. Sell the support for the software which you have written, software you will be most familiar with. This is the model for countless companies writing Free Software.
People are malicious (I enjoy your cynicism, BTW). The difference between proprietary software and free software is that you're free to find those malicious "features" (mind the quotes) by reading the code that is available to you under Free Software. If you can't find it (the evil - not the code), you can assume that the massive community will (eventually). This is impossible in proprietary software. You don't control the software - it controls you.
I'd be happy to let customers have the source code, and even let them sell patches to each other and/or me. But I don't want people to legally be able to resell copies of my work, ala the GPL. If somebody wants to use the program that I wrote, I want to be paid for it. They can modify it however they want after that.
What are my options for doing this? I have released numerous programs licensed under the GPL in the past, but I have a few ideas where I would want to be directly paid for the software.
There are far more projects like the example I gave than companies like Red Hat. You're far more likely to find little solo acts who either can't provide support, dont want to, or even if they did wouldn't be able to sell it because it's just not that necessary. Imagine buying a license for support for some text editor you like and calling the support line to ask how to program in some macro or something. It's just not happening.
Why do FOSS folks always equate closed software with evil? Couldnt we simply want to keep our code to ourselves so we can make money? In most cases 90% of the value of a developer's app comes from the fact that no one else has the code. Just because I've closed the source doesn't mean I'm adding back doors and spyware to my app. It just means I'm protecting my income stream. Demanding that all software release code so that people can extend the app to their liking presupposes that people want to modify the code. Of all the FOSS software I've downloaded and used I really haven't ever wanted to modify the app except in a few rare cases. It sometimes seems like this FOSS ideology completely forgets that not everyone is a programmer or assumes everyone should want to be a programmer.
> The authors of proprietary software control what you do with that software.
He's fine with this, as are many other people.
And I think that's a fair point: if you really are going into the deal with eyes open, knowing you're going to be locked in and tied down to whatever platform, you should be free to make that choice. Of course, if you're smart, you'll drive a hard bargain, knowing that in the future you won't be able to. Stallman says that choice simply should not exist in that proprietary software should not exist.
The 'sell support' thing has some fairly serious limitations that make it less than ideal. Many software products - especially the end user variety - cost a lot to make. Selling 'support' for a product that works well and doesn't require much of it is not a good way to recoup all those sunk costs.
Since you cite 'countless' companies, how about we actually count a few and look at their revenue models?
* Redhat: first of all, they distribute a lot more software than they produce, which is fine, but the scope for that is pretty limited. Also, they basically use trademark law as an end-run around software freedom. You can't redistribute and call it Redhat, and you can't buy any support unless it's real Redhat, and support is a subscription, not a per-incident kind of thing.
* Mysql: they used the "GPL'ed library code" gig to try and get people wanting to embed the code in their proprietary products to cough up some cash. Legitimate business model, but would not work without proprietary software! Also, most things aren't libraries.
What else?
Yeah, anybody can put a trojan in Firefox. But only proprietary software can keep antifeatures - non-secret features that are detrimental to its users. DRM is the epithome of that. More here: http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2007/fall/antifeatures/
Alan Kay has some interesting comments somewhere about a software-design ethic of designing for user empowerment (rather than passive "use"), as well, though I can't seem to find a good canonical paper/talk.
As for the GPL, I personally like it for different reasons, more of quid-pro-quo reasons that Stallman might dislike, something like: you can use and modify this software however you'd like, with the sole condition that you have to share back any improvements you make. To me that seems like a fair thing to ask in return for using my code, since I wasn't obligated to release it in the first place. People who disagree can always pay me for a traditional source licensing agreement.
On the other hand I also have a Linux machine. I love switching distros frequently, using the free software that comes with it and being able to mod my system however I want.
My point is that eradicating proprietary software hurts people just as much as if we were to eradicate the FOSS movement. People choose their platform based on what they're able to do. Most users aren't programmers and prefer Windows or Mac over Linux because it's well known, easy, and gets the job done. I'm glad we have FOSS too though. Why can't the two coexist? Why is proprietary always evil? What's wrong with making money? As it stands we're living in an amazing time where we have the best of both worlds and both sides are playing to their strengths in the greatest of ways.
Most users who are not programmers don't prefer anything--they use whatever the nice salesman at Best Buy or their slightly tech-savvy relative got them to use. On top of that, both Windows and Mac are infinitely more heavily marketed than Linux.
Proprietary software is always evil because it arbitrarily limits what you can do with something you've "bought". Almost everyone here hates DRM; proprietary software is basically software with DRM even if it isn't built in explicitly.
There is nothing wrong with making money; that whole argument is a fallacy (a false dichotomy). Just because you let people modify and redistribute the source does not preclude your making money; I bet Apple would be raking in just as much cash even if you could (and hey, some people do already) run Mac OS on different hardware.
Stallman and FSF people keep saying you can make money with free software but it's not realistic. I never said the FSF or Stallmam were opposed to making money either. Secrecy is what keeps proprietary software valuable. If paid software shipped with source you have already lost most of your sales after selling it just once. It would be great to be able to give people the ability to modify the software but that only works if everyone sticks to the honor system. The GPL requires that you be okay with redistribution. How can you make money when you agree to let your work be distributed in any way shape or form for free. I don't give a shit if you give me credit for the work. You can say Mickey Mouse coded it as long as you pay. That's how I see it.
I completely disagree with distribution. I think it's fine for people to distribute mods and patches but not the entire program. That completely undermines the developer.
I think the FSF is fighting for a just cause but the world just isn't ready for it yet. One mistake is to take a position that calls for the eradication of any software that isn't GPL basically. The other mistake is believing people will be honest. If I could trust every user to pay for a copy of my software and only distribute patches and bug fixes then I could happily get on board. But as long as free software means that people can (and "can" usually turns into "will") redistribute my work for free in its entirety and my work gives competitors a huge leg up then I cannot get behind free software as a viable business.
The support, upgrades, and patches business model doesn't lend itself to every program. It makes sense for Red Hat but would it makes sense for, say, TextMate? The world isn't ready. Free software is wonderful for software that costs nothing but not for the majority of businesses selling software.
Charging money depends on some kind of friction, e.g., not providing source code, or releasing something so complex that you can charge for support, or releasing toy versions.
When I asked Stallman how I was going to make a living writing software if I gave my work away for free, all he said was "Well, I'm sure you can find a way." I wasn't reassured. I am, in fact, rather proud that people pay me for my work; it's a sign that it's worth something, and that I'm doing something right.
Charging money isn't evil, /evil/ is evil.
He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute.
Read this on the gnu website and understand how wrong you are: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
When asked that question he usually replies "if you can't make money by doing free software, maybe you can look for another job". One cannot blame him for putting his ethical principles in front of his professional interests. I, for one, think that's the way it should be.
In 2011 in hacker news we still have to clarify this... oh well...
....except using it in a proprietary application and not redistributing your changes. Just ask the Thesis theme owner about this.
"He associates evil with charging money for software but not letting the buyer having his basic owner rights. Being that the right to modify, use and redistribute."
The problem with what you said here is that he things its evil to not allow someone to be able to share an application with all of their friends after they bought it once. I suppose he's not directly saying money is evil, but since you pretty much can't make money on an app this way (eventually it will be shared and you will lose any hope of making a profit), he's indirectly saying it.
Sure, you can make money on support, but this rules out most small companies because most simply don't have the support staff.
Eventually, this will catch up with the development community. We've all seen bookstores, newspapers, and many other traditional businesses go under in the past couple of years due to the Internet.
Business owners are getting more tech savvy as the older generation dies off. Why should I hire a college-educated software engineer that can write complex apps when I can get all of those difficult parts for free in an OSS app and hire a less-educated software mechanic for less money?
We aren't there yet, but as more and more things are released for free, we will be. My prediction is that the prevalence of open source software it will devalue developer wages over time.
I've already seen it happening. Not necessarily devaluing, but hiring one developer instead of three because an open source app can be used.
How does that devalue developers? Heck, why would you consider this a problem at all? Do you consider it a problem as well that you can use free libraries as well instead of having to write your own implementation of everything? Or think it is problematic that people can use an operating system that works out of the box instead of having to program their own kernel and abstractions?
Avoiding redundant efforts and duplication is good. Whether that means not having to re-write the same code or not having to hire more developers to solve a problem that's been solved before does not matter.
Maybe they only hired one developer instead of three. But this is a good thing--they were able to create the same value for a third the cost; this is a benefit to everybody.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just warning developers that choose to give all their best code away for free. When they find themselves out of a job in 5 years, they shouldn't complain.
It's not a problem for me. I own a business and I'm a developer. It just means cheaper labor for me in the future.
This is unique to software and it isn't right. There's an underlying sense of entitlement to this that I don't agree with. No one is entitled to the right to modify my work and redistribute it. That completely undermines the developer and there's no incentive for people to innovate. It's a free for all where everyone rips everyone else off. This only works if everyone holds firm to Stallmam's beliefs.
If we want to talk about rights and freedom, how about the right for everyone to choose. As it stands now we all can choose to make or use software that allows us to modify, extend, or distribute or we can choose to go proprietary. Both have their merits for both users and developers. These aren't really rights at all. Anything that takes freedom from one group and shifts it to another isn't freedom at all.
Stallman's entire ideology is built around a false choice. This shouldn't be free or proprietary, it should be free and proprietary.
Amongst the rights granted to each individual is the right to modify the tools that they use. You restricting my freedom to modify is as wrong (according to Stallman) as you restricting my freedom to move about.
If you take libertarianism to mean "allow anything that is consensual and does not involve externalities", then proprietary software as implemented today is totally fine. The user consents to an agreement that amounts to "I'll give you the output of my compiler, but I'm not going to give you the input. Also, you have to promise not to redistribute it."
Of course, setting up the details of that arrangement for every creative work would be a huge hassle, and copyright is an attempt (in my opinion a failed one) to streamline it. One way to envision copyright in a libertarian framework is a legal presupposition that when I tell you a "creative secret" (copyrighted work), you'll keep it secret (won't redistribute) unless I give you explicit permission (a license).
*Edit: to elaborate on why I think copyright is a failed streamlining of the above framework, I'll just give one example. If I broadcast my "creative secret" out loud (or over the EM spectrum) then I can't reasonably expect it to be secret. The people who listen to it and hear my "secret" have never formed a consensual agreement with me. Thus, copyright as it stands gets twisted into "you can't participate in public communications without promising to pretend that various things you hear are owned secrets"
Before software, this was much less feasible and generally nobody bothered (e.g., this is why they still sell cars without the hood welded shut, and why simpler computers used to come with schematics).
He didn't decide anything, he simply presents his view on such matters and backs it up with solid logic. Anyone is free to disagree with him and to make oneself heard.
However, one can most definitely blame him for projecting his ethical principles onto others.
Stallman is just doing the same thing as the people commenting on Facebook's practices, just against proprietary software rather than privacy abuses. I think that not only should we not blame him, but we should also commend him for maintaining and arguing for his principles.
Could you rephrase your argument against his viewpoint in a way that doesn't include false statements?
For example, as an opponent of large classes of patents, I don't believe that charging money to license patents in those classes is a business plan that should exist, which doesn't imply that I oppose charging money for things in general.
Oh boy. I guess if you have steadfast beliefs to the point that you can no longer keep yourself from sharing those every time you turn around, you become a philosopher.
RMS doesn't have a problem with software. He has a problem with capitalism. Stallman's approach to software is one to which I don't subscribe. Software is not something I see as needing liberation, like those of oppressed individuals in a society.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I would love to avoid some of the proprietary black boxes that I have to deal with in my job. However, I knew the situation going into it. Many times, I've not had the option of avoiding a black box.
That's a customer service and/or product problem, not an industry problem. If it's a problem that actually impedes innovation, I have a solution -- it's called the free market. We've never been in a better position to provide software solutions to problems not addressed by the market, and we can charge for them, give them away, do whatever we want. There is nothing holding us back in this scenario.
I find ironic his insistence that I cannot control software I create -- because no one should be allowed to control software -- is, in and of itself, controlling.
That speaks to the larger issue you touched on about Stallman and the FSF. They like to talk about control but don't see how they're being controlling. It's as if because Stallmam believes he's doing something "for the good of the people" it's okay to further his cause by any means necessary. I'm hesitant to say this but it kind of reminds me of Malcolm X. Malcolm X was a very well intentioned man and his cause was a just one. The only problem was that he went to extremes, glossed over the gray areas, and refused to accept any other view no matter how good a point the other side made.
You can be a supporter of free software while still supporting proprietary software. What Stallman is arguing for takes control out of the hands of the creators and gives it not to the people but the FSF. It's like Stalinist Russia except for software. For the good of the people everyone should own your work.
Stallman's views make some assumptions that are unacceptable.
1. He assumes people want to be able to modify the applications they use. Not so. In fact, most people I'd argue acquire software so they don't have to write code. I don't download a text editor because I want to extend it. I do it because it helps me get something else done. I choose the software that meets my needs. If I wanted to toy with source code I'd build my own IDE, compiler, etc and start everything from scratch.
2. It assumes everyone is, wants to be, or should be a programmer. What use is the source code if it looks like gibberish to you? This view glosses over the fact that the majority of users don't give one iota of a shit about programming. They just want to watch YouTube or write their English class essay.
3. It assumes that anything closed source must have something sneaky within it. Okay, so there's spyware and back doors in a lot of proprietary software. That doesn't mean the guy that doesn't release the source of his text editor (I'm thinking of my new favorite editor, Chocolate for Mac) is spying on you or doing anything malicious at all.
4. It assumes that anyone who supports, uses, or develops free software is on the honor system and would never do anything unethical. I think the part where he suggests that free software can be charged for is laughable. If you release anything under GPL you can be reasonably sure someone will take your source and give away some free version of your program or even derive something else and make money off your hard work. Red Hat Linux is not a good rebuttal of this point. Most software, especially from indie devs, doesn't lend itself to the Red Hat business model well at all.
Programming is a very valuable skill and the creators of great software deserve to choose how they license and distribute that software. Stallman wants to take choice away from one group and give it to, well, no one really. I'd argue we have choice now. I want to be able to choose proprietary software if it meets my needs and I want to be able to not only charge people for my work but make sure they cannot turn around and undermine my efforts by deriving or giving away my work. That's very reasonable. I love free software and use it often but I can't say there's anything evil about it. There's this sense of entitlement to Stallman's message that I don't like too.
Not really. Stallman is actually making a very libertarian point when he insists that users have the right to modify and redistribute software. He's saying, in essence, "Your rights end, where mine begin." To Stallman, every user has the right to modify and redistribute software, just like they have the right to modify and resell any other tool they use. As a software developer, you don't have the right to take away a user's software because they modify and resell it.
I guess we should then be permitted to modify and resell a book, a movie, or anything else that's the output of one's thoughts?
If that's where the argument ended, I would simply say "well ok" and move on, but Stallman goes beyond that. He wants to dictate what terms I would put around any application I provide as a product, simply because it's in the realm of software. As if software is this magical land where I have no say in anything I produce.
Framing this industry as somehow different based on a simplistic parallel of hard goods = soft goods is disingenuous.