Re: [Fsuk-manchester] RMS on Swedish Pirate Party vs Free Software

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/7/27 Pater Mann <address@hidden>:
> I may be wrong (it does happen! [grin]) but I think that the GNU
> project was originally created to try and break the stranglehold that
> AT&T used to have over Unix.

It was more a reaction to a general change where software stopped
being shared freely between hackers and was instead controlled by
corporations with access limited by NDAs:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html.  In effect, RMS saw a
change taking place to the existing status quo which he viewed as
negative both to his own interests and those of society at large, and
reacted against it.

As computers are not much good without an
> operating system, in that context the principles of free software as
> described by RMS and the FSF make perfect sense. On that basis, there
> are strong arguments for systems software being free and I am in
> complete agreement with that. However, it seems to have gone way
> beyond that original premise and has turned into the idea that *all*
> software should be free. As applications software is not required for
> a computer to operate, I cannot see any reason why it should also be
> free.

It's difficult to draw such a boundary.  Who gets the right to decide
that one piece of software should be free but another shouldn't?
What's important for the operation of a computer differs between
users.  A computer is 'not much good' to many people these days if it
doesn't have a full graphical user interface and a web browser
available for them to use.  It's difficult to draw such a line and
certainly no one person or entity should be deciding what falls in to
either camp.

>
> I am struggling to understand why (applications) software should be
> different to almost any other commodity. If I was an engineer who
> created a new engine, I wouldn't be expected to tell everyone the
> details of how it works; if I was an industrial chemist that created a
> new form of plastic, I wouldn't be expected to tell everyone how to
> make it; if I was a chef who created a new dish, I wouldn't be
> expected to just give away the recipe; if I was a biochemist that
> developed a new anti-cancer drug, at least there is a moral argument
> that says that after I have recouped my development costs (or even
> earlier) I should release the details to help save more lives but, as
> far as I am aware, there is no such imperative.
 So why should I have
> to give away the software that I develop? If I choose to give it away
> (and I almost always do), that is my decision and I am happy to make
> it but I should not be forced to do so.

It's dangerous to make comparisons across different fields, especially
when one is software.  Half the problem with software today is that it
is squeezed into existing laws rather than being treated differently.
Take copyright for example as it's central to Free software and the
original topic of this thread - how likely do you think it is that the
software developed now is going to be usable in 2059? Because that's
when its UK copyright expires and it enters the public domain.  It
takes even longer in the US.  And of course it would still be a
useless change anyway if the source code was never distributed.

New engine designs, drugs and plastics are not covered by copyright
law.  They are covered by patent law (which has a horrible effect when
applied to software but that's another story).  So the creator has a
monopoly on the idea for twenty years (UK law) after which point it
becomes available to all.  The idea is published as part of the patent
proposal so it's made public immediately.  But its use by third
parties is punishable by law before the patent expires.  Someone who
discovers something new also tends to publish their work in the
academic literature because that's how science progresses.

No one is forcing you to give software away.  First of all, Free
software is not equivalent to software available for zero cost
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).  Secondly, Free software
licenses only kick in when you choose to distribute the software.  You
can happily take a GPLed project, make changes for yourself and not
distribute them.  Just ask Google.  The premise of Free software is
that if you are going to distribute the software, you should pass on
to the recipient the four freedoms: the right to use it, the right to
modify it, the right to distribute it and the right to distribute
their modifications.  You have these rights implicitly with many
things you buy or otherwise obtain, but they are not a given with
software especially because of the effect of copyright law.

Software still has to be developed so labour still has to be paid for.
 Most software is bespoke software which has to be developed first, so
the developers get paid for the development work not for handing out
copies of the software.  By suggesting that software should be
proprietary, you're not saying that developers should get paid for
their work, but that the owners of the software (usually the company,
not the developers) should be able to make money out of the software
virtually forever without any further investment and by taking control
of the users through creating a dependency on them for modifications
and enhancements.  Microsoft are an obvious example; the actual cost
of the development work for a product like Microsoft Office will pale
in comparison to how much they have received back by charging hundreds
of pounds per copy and maintaining monopolistic control over the
product.

Developing proprietary software is a small-minded take on things.  The
software is developed to make the company money and for that reason
alone.  Think of how much further things may have progressed by now if
everyone wasn't going around reinventing the wheel because proprietary
software creates unnecessary barriers.  Progress at large is being
stalled by the desire to make money.  There is a big difference
between making sufficient money to live comfortably and making
ridiculous amounts by monopolising and controlling users.

On the subject of Pegasus, I've never understood the point of
zero-cost proprietary software.  At least when the software is charged
for, you can see why they do it.  Pegasus could be a much more
well-developed application by now if its development hadn't been
arbitrarily limited and the best thing he could do now is release it
under a Free software license.  Remember: only proprietary software
dies.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
>



-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8