Hacker News Reader

Comment by HerraBRE | Hacker News Reader

You're joking, right?

Free Software is not about slavish compliance with licensing terms or inventing shiny new technology for technology's sake (that movement is called Open Source). Free Software is about having the freedom to control your computing environment.

I believe this is really, really important because in a world increasingly shaped and even dominated by technology, people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code.

Proprietary software violates this requirement, but at least you can reverse engineer it, hack it. With cloud services, even that option is removed. The user has lost all control. This is pretty obviously bad for a democratic society, but hey, it's great for tech wizards aspiring to be the next Mark Zuckeberg, so who cares about that? :-P

View on HN

"people have to be able to look under the hood and fix the code that runs their society. Otherwise they become slaves to whoever made the rules by writing the code."

This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.

Are we "slaves" because we don't know the specifics of something inside our TV or car? no. and we won't be slaves if we don't get all of the source code to the software that we use.

You act as if it's a right and when enough people start feeling this way, the next step is usually to get the government involved to force software vendors to open up their source (Stallman has openly stated that he would like this). Viewing my source code isn't a right and should never be a right.

The free software and open source movements have both devalued developers. Why would I hire a software engineer that has years of schooling and costs $80K, when I can just hire a software mechanic for half price and make simple changes to the free stuff that the engineer created.

The same thing that is happening to other industries will happen to developers in 5-10 years. We are just at the beginning of the transition.

I've worked at many places that could have hired 5 developers, but only hired me because we were using open source and the majority of the what was needed was already finished. Another factor is that the younger generations, who have been using open source throughout their lives, are growing up and starting businesses.

I'm not saying this is a bad or a good thing, just my prediction.

This is where we disagree. If you don't like the license that I use, don't use the software that I created.

That's doesn't necessarily conflict with HerraBRE's position. Personally, I don't think people should be forced to distribute their code, but I sure as hell will avoid such software if there's an open alternative. Ideally, I hope we as a society can eliminate the demand for proprietary software, thus eliminating it without ever violating anyone's rights.

More efficient competition is always scary. But for society as a whole, that's a very huge gain of resources that'll be applied somewhere else, possibly paying engineers to actually develop something new and worthwhile instead of reinventing the wheel.

In any case, we're on HN! Where's your contempt for the salarymen? ;)

If I don't like the license you use, I don't. Except when I have no choice, which has unfortunately often been the case due to natural monopolies or social pressure. A decade ago, that problem was Microsoft. Today it is becoming SaaS in the cloud (witness Facebook's natural monopoly on all things social).

Regarding devaluing developers by making the entire industry more efficient... you can't possibly believe that's bad for society. You sound like you feel entitled to a big paycheck and government granted monopoly protection for your work (that is what Copyright and patents and the like are, artificial government granted monopolies).

I disagree with that sense of entitlement. And as a result, I do think your so called rights (privileges would be a better word) should be restricted a bit. :-) But I honestly don't think it will harm you. Without a complete paradigm shift in how code is created, programming will remain a highly sought after and highly valued skill for a very long time. There are still so many unsolved problems out there, and people will pay to have them solved, no matter what the license and no matter what the legal environment.

The same argument can be made for any sufficiently complicated device or technology, not just code. I suppose I could deconstruct my smart phone and reverse engineer all of its drawings, designs and schematics. Practically speaking though I am bound to its original designer's implementation.

Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy.

"Furthermore, in a democratic society you're more than free to vote with your money -- I don't understand what having full access to someone else's intellectual property/the fruits of their labor has to do with democracy."

You have conflated so much economics and governmental policy here I don't even know where to start. We (at least Americans) live in neither a free market nor democracy, for starters.

The comment I was responding to is the one that brought up how FSF is beneficial for a "democratic society", not me.

You are right, the same argument can be made, and often it should be made.

As an example, a lot of people are pissed off that they can no longer fix their cars themselves because of black-box designs and software restrictions. The ultimate result of that sort of thing is a monopoly on repairs and upgrades, where only approved mechanics who promise to only make approved changes can do useful work. This may be good for the bottom line of the car manufacturer, who ultimately wants you to buy another car, but it is not good for society.

Software is also a special case, in that it is rapidly becoming our society's primary means of communication and decision making. Some things, games and toys, don't matter really and are not a matter of great concern. But other things, operating systems and communication platforms, social networks, voting systems... it can be argued that allowing these to be closed and proprietary is something we should never accept.

Also, keep in mind that Intellectual Property is not a natural right - it is an artificial construct, a monopoly granted by government to encourage innovation and for the benefit of society. If it turns out that it does the opposite, hinders innovation (patent wars, anyone?) and disempowers society (censorship on Facebook?), then it has stopped serving its purpose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com