I am a strong believer in free software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). But when time goes by, I hear a lot more people complaining about FSF being “fanatic”. Although I can understand why it seems that it is this way, but this should not necessarily be a bad thing. FSF advocates for software being free, as in freedom. Sometimes, when advocating for free software, they use methods that could be more harmful towards themselves than it needs to be. This is when they for example call proprietary or closed source software as “evil” or “nasty”.
But I think that they are trying to convince that the software, if it is closed source, would not respect the end-user of that programme. The end-user never will know what exactly the software does, could it be sending sensitive data to a company or other things that could harm your privacy. And this is one of the reasons why they choose to call proprietary software “evil” or “nasty”.
There is another “camp” in the matter of software, that is not proprietary. It is called “open source”. The difference between “open source” and “free software” is that open source “camp” has development as the key value, while the free software “camp” has the social value as the key value. In short this means that the “open source camp” thinks that the open source software is better in practical ways, while the “free software camp” thinks that the free software better in social ways. In short, free software thinks of a community project where everyone helps everyone. But all in all, the projects have one common goal, that is eliminating closed source/proprietary software.
So, would it be better if all software was proprietary? In that case, I would imagine this happen:
- All computer users are made dependent on the software developer(s).
- Only those working with the software projects would know the source.
- Developers could put in malicious features in the software, if they wanted.
- Non-developers would not have control over the software that they can install in their machine.
- Non-developers would be slaves under the computers.
Not a rather pleasant thing to know, at least not for me in that matter. I know that most of the people using computers most likely are not computer scientists, but still free software gets you as the end-user more alternatives. You are given the chance to learn programming, and learn to know how the stuff works. And in my ideal world, there would only be free software that makes the community work together. And this is a way of regaining power over the computer that you own.
However, there is a rather small problem when it comes to this:
- Some websites could need proprietary plugins (such as Adobe’s proprietary Flash plugin, since Gnash has problems with Flash sites).
- Institutions, such as schools, could use proprietary email clients, such as FirstClass. This would be needed if you would like to read your school email.
- Fully free software computers could crash, due to the lack of supported hardware.
So, then the question could be raised: How can we work together towards free software? The easiest answer would be to start using an operating system that is more free that the one we have now. With this I mean, if you use Windows or Mac, you could try an operating system as Linux Mint or Ubuntu. These operating systems are in my opinion two of the simplest operating systems when you come into the world of Gnu/Linux. They are more free than Windows and Mac, but use some proprietary software or some proprietary software is already installed. The thing is, when you start to turn towards free software, it probably is a bit difficult to stop using all kind of proprietary software. Thus, this makes the transition more simple.
If you already are using any Gnu/Linux distribution, you could choose to not include the proprietary repositories through your program central. Another alternative would be to install a completely free os, such as Trisquel. Trisquel has been my favourite os, but the major drawback for me has been that the screen did freeze too often and I was forced to restart my computer before it could start behaving normally too many times. This was when I used Trisquel 5.0 LTS, but I know that there is a new version out there. For now, I am content with my Ubuntu 12.04. Even though it has some blobs in the kernel and is not entirely free software, it works good out-of-the-box. And I choose not to install proprietary programs. So, in my opinion, I do as much as I can to use free software.
Another solution would be that all developers would start coding free software. But I do not think that all developers would, especially those who code proprietary software. So in that case, we as computer consumers, could start demanding more from the manufacturers and developers. We could start demanding more free software. If they would not listen, we could boycott those manufacturers and developers to show that we mean business. This is of course more demanding, but it should show some results. This of course, if all computer users would join together in this campaign. Together all of us would stand strong.
This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
I’m extremely impressed with your writing talents as neatly as with the layout for your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it is uncommon to look a great blog like this one nowadays..
Thank you!
No, this theme is not paid nor modified. The theme is called INove, and you can find it here: http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/inove/
oh, forgot to say:
Great article. Makes one think.
Well, I start of easy. First of I want to say that I do not entirely know were I stand in this question. I think the free software philosophy is rather complex. But maybe that is just me over analyzing things, who knows.
I think Stallman really is the fanatic one, they should get a new spokesperson in my opinion, because having a spokesperson who speak in this way is not ideal. “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone”. A very cynical comment and delusional, in my opinion. He really thinks Jobs is some kind of evil person who enslaves people, or something. He lives in some kind of fantasy world, disconnected from the rest of us. Steve Jobs was not perfect, but he certainly was not evil.
You may think that I focusing on Stallman a little to much, but I really think he is the reason why people turn their back to Free software foundation.
I understand what you mean by your explanation as of why they call proprietary software “evil”. But I think there is a philosophical problem here. I can call them evil for trying to enforce their philosophy on me. It is all a matter of viewpoints and perspective. Evil is kind of a subjective thing, people interpret evil and good many different ways.
I see open source as a more neutral alternative. Which is able and willing to compromise to achieve better software. What if there is proprietary code in the software, if the software gets much, much better and all the users like the change or update? Is it not that thing which matters the most in the end, user satisfaction? Open source also wants to help everyone, but if helping means include proprietary code, they do not hesitate to do that. In my world, helping people in the computer world is to make good, user friendly software which are gratis for everyone to use. Everyone is happy and 99% will not care that all the code is not modifiable. As long as you can modify some code, it is sufficient.
“Non-developers would be slaves under the computers.”. There actually is a philosophical expression which assuming that some people want to be slaves. That would certainly explain why so many people fighting to keep dictatorship in place or why some people want a dictator again, after the country has been liberated. Some people maybe prefer enslavement rather than freedom. And if that is the case, maybe that is applicable in the computer world as well.
About the flash plugin and such. That is also a problem. Many people can not live after Free software foundations standard. Many can not live without proprietary software. FSF is over ambitious in this case. Few people will change they way of living, and absolutely not in a such drastic way.
“You could choose to not include the proprietary repositories through your program central”. This is the thing which scares people away. I can not even understand how you can use your computer without you proprietary software. I can not live for one week without .mp3, flash or h.264.
Heck, it is already hard to get people to try Linux. But to get them to not use proprietary is nearly impossible. Yes, I could use .ogg instead of .mp3, but say that to my Ipod or Iphone. You understand what I mean, many of us are to dependent on proprietary software. But I feel free. I do not feel free if I have to purchase software. Again, perspective.
I advocate open source and Freeware. Consumers are often more concerned about gratis. We kinda live in a free (as in beer) internet-sociality I think that model will win at the end, but who knows. Only time will tell.
The best would to include all the philosophies in one big mix and thus creating the best user experience ever imaginable.
I note that this is not an easy question to answer. I am dependent on my computer, so I choose to use as much free/open source software as possible. I guess that every computer user like to have one computer that does exactly what they demand their computers to do, as do I.
But the problem when it comes to proprietary software, is that those developers then has the power over the software. Only the developers over the proprietary software has the power over the software, creating bug-fixes if they wanted. Or putting in malicious features.
I know that the FSF has a completely free standard, but in this page (http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html) they have written some examples where you (as a Windows user, but some of the software should also work on Mac) can take the first steps towards free software. I note that it is an big change, to switch operating system. But this change can be done in smaller steps, so that you do not go into “deep water” directly.
I have said that in my perfect world, I would only use free/open source software. But the thing is that my computer did not work fully with Trisquel 5.0 LTS (a fully free operating system, based on Ubuntu). So I must use some proprietary components such as binary blobs in the kernel to make my computer work properly.
And Stallman probably is a little too engaged to reach this goal of his. This could be one of the reasons why he is seen as a fanatic. The thing is, that there are some free operating systems that is approved by Free Software Foundation. The unfortunate one is that free software is, accordingly to Stallman, constantly threatened. This is through, for example, software patents (http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/04/stallman-discusses-free-softwa.html, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index2.htm).
But if he were not as engaged, probably he would not push as much towards making software free (as in freedom)? I do not know.
Great comment, this shows how differently we view these problems, even though we would rather use free/open source software instead of proprietary.
We kind of believe in two different sorts of freedom. But the end goal is nearly the same. And that goal is to dismantle closed source and liberate the world with free software.
I may come forward as very critical. But I am a person who criticizes, even the things I hold dear, because I firmly believe that the only way you can improve your ideas and get saner and more intelligent is to criticize everything. There are always two sides of the coin. There are always multiply viewpoints which you have to take into account. Who knows, your opponent may have some great ideas. You never know. To look critical at things have often made my beliefs stronger and more defined. Like the issue with the soul. If I never looked critical at things and read what my opponents had to say, I would still believe that evolution never occurred and that the soul is some diffuse “I” rather than something specific. I like to challenge my own beliefs, because that often makes them stronger and better. Not the opposite. If a person becomes an atheist as soon as he look at the “evidence”, which Richard Dawkins claims, I should already be an atheist * 40. But I am not.
Sorry for the off-topic. But I felt that I had to explain.