Freedom

Ricardo offers a reflection on freedom, prompted by the ruckus between blogmemes and meneame.

He’s a philosopher, and this is a subject that has been debated for centuries. Are we human beings free?

The question matters, because it defines the limits of ethics. Aristotle asks it, and says we’re free only up to a point. Sterner ones, like Spinoza, argue that since we are part of the essence of God, freedom lies in accepting his will, which means that deep down we can’t be free in the everyday sense of the word.

I believe we are free, because we can choose. However, what I want is one thing, and what I can do is another. What I choose is one thing, and what happens to me is another.

I’m free to drive down the highway as fast as I want, or to stay up all night and drive without paying attention to road conditions, but that is going to have consequences for me, as it did.

It’s true, there is no absolute freedom, because we are not absolute. If we were, we’d be gods and could control the world at will.

But how boring that would be, don’t you think?

We are free, but we have limits, which are external to us. I can choose to read Ricardo’s post, and once I’ve read it I can choose to answer him.

When you choose, you have to face the consequences of that decision.

Because freedom comes with a backpack, and it’s called RESPONSIBILITY.

Freedom and software

Every license sets a framework. For example, this site is under a Creative Commons attribution license, which says you can distribute this content, you can even create derivative works and make money from what I write, but you must credit me as the author of the original texts.

The same goes for software: you can put whatever license you want on it. Apple restricts the use of much of its software, which can’t be used in medicine or military technology. Others don’t allow their software to control nuclear plants.

You have the right to set down your ethical vision in the license of the software you create. If you think it’s wrong for your software to be used in pornography, or to promote racial hatred, then you should look for a license that forbids that.

The original GPL license is based on certain principles embodied in Richard Stallman’s idea of Free Software.

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Under this philosophy, you can build software to control intercontinental ballistic missiles of mass destruction as long as the program can be studied, that is, its source code must be accessible.

You’d say the military would never do that, but freedom 0 doesn’t prevent it. What’s more, there is GPL software for the military industry. RedHawk Linux is the most striking example, used in the development of combat aircraft, and even the NSA has developed a version of linux adapted to the security needs of the United States.

I don’t like Linux being used for that. In fact it’s ridiculous to argue about whether GPL software should restrict the use of DRM, when it’s ethically far more questionable for free software to be used to develop bombers that will kill thousands of children.

It seems that in the GPL the other side of freedom, responsibility, is neither questioned nor bounded. The GPL seeks absolute freedom for software, but imposes no responsibility on it.

So don’t tell me that free software isn’t an ideology, and that it’s an ethics, because it isn’t. If there were ethics in free software, the responsibilities that come with following this philosophy would be defined.

It’s an ideology, one that has to do with software flowing freely, and there’s nothing wrong with it being an ideology. What’s wrong is that they want to impose it, and want us to believe it’s an ethical vision of the profession of developing software.