When freedom isn't free (software) | Hacker News Reader

When freedom isn't free (software)

news.cnet.com

3 pointsbitdiddle6 comments

I find Matt Assay's columns pretty weird. This one, like many others, comes close to being stream of consciousness yet I always feel there is some coherent, yet alien to me, worldview in which it all makes sense.

I mean it's all very well to say that the licence isn't everything and achieving your goals of "freedom" requires a more holistic approach, but to follow that up with using Microsoft as an example of someone who can attract developers? It's a mind-bogglingly obtuse non sequitur.

His closing line:

"So long as it's the customer that takes center stage in the debate, I'm convinced we won't go wrong."

The key word here is "customer".

I think I get it. He's not a dev & he's working with "cloud" apps so he very understandably doesn't care about source code availability. To him freedom/openness/etc is windows app development vs iphone app development. And something about more features means you're more free to do what you want.

I post this not to fan the recent flames but rather to point out that there is often a lot of press about FSF extremism and ideology that is somewhat overstated. I was recently referred to "why the GPL rocketed Linux to success" ( http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd ), that makes a plausible argument that Linux would not be successful were it not for the GPL.

How many programmers are attracted to more "liberal" licenses because they hope to profit from their efforts in some commercial setting and find those licenses more conducive to that? In fact I believe the GPL bests protects the interests of programmers/hackers. For example anyone who invests time and energy learning and hacking Linux can be assured of finding employment doing that precisely because it it GPL code. It creates a level playing field for all.

Freedom is never free, it always has costs. Linus Torvalds can smugly opine and comment about not being so anti-MS and so forth, yet he chose GPL for Linux and did so again for Git. He made the right choice.

I don't think the article was saying that the GPL is the wrong choice, but that focusing completely on the license misses the point. The article was more about the dogmatic stand that certain people within the free software community have taken. Is identi.ca "better" because it uses the GPL but has a closed platform while Twitter uses closed source but has an open platform?

I see your point. I'm not familiar with identi.ca, presumably a Twitter competitor, but I'd say the answer is no if by open platform one means the ability for programmers to interact with the service and build value on it. I don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written.

"I don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written."

I think that's the author's point: freedom and openness are not the same thing. The GPL makes software free in the sense that any programmer can see, use and modify the code and must also make their own use free as well.

Twitter, by contrast, makes its application open in that it offers a simple, powerful and permissive API to third party developers. They understand the positive network externality in allowing others to enhance and build on their own product, which makes it more valuable to everyone.

That openness is also a kind of freedom, but it's not the freedom that Stallman has in mind. Of course, as Torvalds has shown with his shepherding of the Linux project, freedom and openness can certainly coexist and reinforce each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com