A discussion about free software

Carlos sent me a comment on my previous article, “Forgive me, Saint Ignucius”.

That post grew out of a comment, in the context of the clone wars, but since I respect Carlos a lot, and since we both decided it would be interesting to debate free software, I’m going to publish his email first; later, probably this weekend, I’ll write up a reply.

A note for those not used to reading email threads: when Carlos wants to quote me, he prefixes the line with the ‘>’ sign.

—–Original Message—–

From: Carlos

Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 12:49 PM

To: Eduardo Diaz

Subject: RE: [La Naturaleza del Software] New comment posted on ‘Perdóname San Ignucius!!!!’

Hi Eduardo,

(I’d rather have this discussion on the blog, but well… your site is down)

I think it’s very important to separate the criticism leveled at Stallman as a developer of programs from the criticism of him as a promoter of free software and of the other principles he defends. No doubt the range of beliefs RMS defends is much wider than free software and its freedoms, and no doubt those beliefs seep into what he does as a programmer, but it isn’t worth mixing that into a discussion about free software.

> The other thing is that free software doesn’t have to be the way RMS sees it; let’s say > free software is to Christianity as the FSF is to the Catholic Church. > > Personally I’m agnostic :) > > For some, charging for licenses is immoral. RMS doesn’t promote that > directly, but he smiles. > In fact he doesn’t like the concept of Intellectual Property. >

You’re wrong. The freedom to sell software is an integral part of the GPL and of free software. RMS is clearly anti-capitalist, but he has always been transparent about not being against people making money with free software.

As for Intellectual Property, I don’t like the concept either, because it throws different subjects, trademarks, copyright and patents, into the same bag, and because the concept of IP implies an analogy between Ownership of Objects and of Ideas, which are completely different things. For example, I agree with (limited) copyright and with trademarks but disagree with software patents.

> But in your comment you give me the answer to your own question. You say: > > “What RMS does is clear: if you want to write free software, these are the > rules; if not, your program isn’t free software. There’s nothing totalitarian about that.” > > The question is, what is the truth value of what RMS says? >

Well, the value of what he says is transitory, to the extent that his authority comes from his community and he has no direct power over them. RMS has earned the right to be heard, but obviously (as in the case of GPLv3) his authority is one that will be constantly put to the test. On the other hand, RMS and free software are connected historically and philosophically, but by now free software is clearly an independent entity.

> Suppose I had released akarrú under a license that says > you can’t use it to promote racial hatred, or child pornography. > > Does it stop being free? > > I don’t think so. It’s still free, just not according to RMS’s > definition.

If by “RMS’s definition” you mean the GPL, adding a condition about racial hatred violates one of the freedoms, so sure, it isn’t free software.

What you have to understand is that free software uses a very precise and specific definition of freedom. One can argue forever about the philosophical nature of the word “free”, but in this context that’s a Byzantine discussion. Historically, the use of the word “free” caused plenty of conflict because of its double meaning in English, and now I see that even in Spanish it lends itself to interpretation. Maybe it would be better to call it “Condorito Software” and then say: the four conditions for CS are… blah blah blah

> > RMS’s definition of the freedoms doesn’t take ethics into account, because > according to RMS software can be used for anything. > > Well, I believe freedom and ethics go together. In fact, > ethics arises from the fact that we are free.

Agreed, Eduardo. Without freedom there can be no ethics. Nobody is questioning that, at least in this context.

The GPL and the Free Software Guidelines are the embodiment of an ethical position, namely, that software should be free. To be free, certain conditions must be met. Once those conditions are met, of course the software can be used for anything, and that is built into RMS’s ethical position, which is “I can’t tell you what use you may put this software to, if it’s free”.

The same goes for, say, the declaration of human rights. One says: my ethical position is that these are inalienable rights, and here’s the list. Other rights (the right not to be sent spam by email, for example) aren’t on the list, and therefore are not human rights.

> Therefore, I think the concept of free software put forward > by the FSF should be questioned. > Imposing it as the only model of free software is ideologically > abusive (not to say totalitarian).

Imposing it? How, exactly, does it impose it? When you release akarrú, who imposes on you which license to use? There are many licenses listed at the FSF and at opensource.org that qualify as free, and many others that are more limited. Your freedom lies in choosing whichever license you want, no? Obviously, once you choose the GPL, you have to follow the rules, even if you don’t support the ideology (read: Linus Torvalds).

> > The question is, can I make free software with a definition > different from the one the FSF promotes? > I think so. >

Free Software is a kind of implicit trademark. More than a decade of software development under that label makes it almost impossible to say you can write “free software” with another definition, since it’s that definition that established what free software is in the first place.

On the other hand, nobody forbids you from promoting “Condorito Software” under whatever conditions you please. But I doubt you can call it “Free Software”.

> I hope this clarifies my position; your comment and my reply > will appear as soon as I’ve finished resetting my server.

Thanks for your reply,

Regards, Carlos