RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users.
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else.
Those who do not program depend on others to program, of course. There is a big difference between depending on a community and being at the mercy of a specific organization. Except for Robinson Crusoe and a few survivalists, we all depend on a community. But in a society of freedom and equality, we are not at the mercy of any specific person.
If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely rolling their eyes or burst into laughter. It is a very programmercentric view with an elitest touch.
When people say that, they are looking at the issue too narrowly. Anyone can learn to program, and even though not everyone will do so, everyone should have the right to do so.
Compare with freedom of the press. Not everyone will write articles for publication, but everyone should have the right to do so.
Hi Richard,
Some comments on your subject line. As I wrote to Bernhard you shouldn't mix up things that have nothing to do with each other. I was talking about a 'useless' argument and not freedom. I hope not having to explain the meaning of the term 'argument', but I give you a hint: It's not the same as freedom ;-). I didn't even mention the term freedom in my mail. Why are arguments that don't fit into the scheme always smashed with the huge freedom hammer? By the way, this a good method to convert the term 'freedom' from woolliness to uselessness.
I like to give the general advice to everyone to take a few steps back sometimes and listen to yourself, as well as giving some general reflections on the whole issue from different ancles. Many great ideas got stuck in itself and sometimes I get the impression here is some stagnation as well. Call me arrogant, unpolite or whatever, but I'm absolutly serious about it and I'm not doing this just to entertain myself.
I have no use for the all in one term 'freedom' and it reminds me a lot of cheap Hollywood films. My use is limited to certain subject, but as it seems to be the most important term, someone can easily answer two small questions:
What is freedom?
What is freedom for?
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else.Those who do not program depend on others to program, of course. There is a big difference between depending on a community and being at the mercy of a specific organization. Except for Robinson Crusoe and a few survivalists, we all depend on a community. But in a society of freedom and equality, we are not at the mercy of any specific person.
Good that you mention the community, which seems to be in many arguments just a minor aspect, but this is the most intriguing part of the free software thing. Licenses and legal issues are just the framework, not more or less, but the community is running the system.
"Imagine there is free software and no one is taking part"
The community is living the freedom, but I'm more likely to use different terms. It is about tolerance, fairness, respect, helpfulness in a democratic structure. One aspect is in my eyes the most important one: It doesn't matter if you are writing a hell lot of code, just a bit of documentation or simply helping someone else with a problem, everybody appriciates what you are doing and gives you the feeling being needed in a community. This aspect can't be overestimated. So many problem over the whole world, in many different varieties, derive from a lack of this or are influenced by it. Even a democracy can't prevent that, because it works on a different level. Especially in our success-orientated, I'm-so-important mainstream, there is is a desperat need for a different way.
This is not just mawkishness, but the main reason for productivety and efficency of the free software movement. I can't think of a more desirable synthesis than this one.
It seems to me, I have a different priority than the majority in the list, which is definatly centered around the community, with all the mistakes and differnt views human beings have. Free licenses are an important basement and I absolutly agree with the four freedoms, because it wouldn't work otherwise properly and in my opinion knowledge should be a common good, but they aren't any abstract ideal in itself. I also agree that legal issues have to be dealt with, but you won't run or change a society with a legislation or in front of a law court. It's the other way around. We have all the problems with useless or dangerous laws, licenses, software patents, etc because something is going wrong in our societies, in our heads. Keep that always in mind.
If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely rolling their eyes or burst into laughter. It is a very programmercentric view with an elitest touch.When people say that, they are looking at the issue too narrowly. Anyone can learn to program, and even though not everyone will do so, everyone should have the right to do so.
Compare with freedom of the press. Not everyone will write articles for publication, but everyone should have the right to do so.
Cheers
Rainer
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
answer two small questions:
What is freedom?
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases without restricting the freedom of any fellow human being.
What is freedom for?
Why, to live a long and prosper life, what else?
I don't really see what's your problem. Fredom is a quite simple and basic thing...
Cheers,
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
answer two small questions:
What is freedom?
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases without restricting the freedom of any fellow human being.
I give you another version:
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases
And here a similar one, which you should know:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
These are two versions with an essential difference. I used the software freedom example, because it is quite often used as equal to freedom. This makes it a bit tricky.
What is freedom for?
Why, to live a long and prosper life, what else?
It's an aspect :-), but you can have it even in a dictatorship, if you have the right position.
The question might sound stupid, but in a society freedom has meaning and a function and this is changing during times. Okay, it's geting a bit abstract, but that shouldn't be forgotten.
I don't really see what's your problem. Fredom is a quite simple and basic thing...
I don't agree. It is getting really complex, even from these few sentences. Off limits is a quite common form of freedom and everybody carrys his/her own version of freedom the head. You can easily damage another person with a misuse of free speech without limiting his/her freedom.
We have to take care about our relationship to these points. All our ideas about freedom, free speach, democracy derive from times when we didn't have all that. But this is more or less gone and keeping a strong relationship to an every day issue is always difficult. Moreover we are facing an increasing 'misuse' of our freedoms.
I don't want to stress that to much, but if the term freedom is so excessivly used and a basic idea, there should be some reflections on it, which I hardly ever saw.
Cheers
Rainer
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
These are two versions with an essential difference. I used the software freedom example, because it is quite often used as equal to freedom. [...]
Who by? Free Software is a particular codification of freedom which people on this list believe to be the most useful application of a freedom doctrine to software. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, have they?
The reasons for this decision are in mail archives around the place, in many forms. Generally, when this term "Free Software" is introduced, the definition and reasoning are introduced too, although that doesn't always make it through onto paper.
I don't want to stress that to much, but if the term freedom is so excessivly used and a basic idea, there should be some reflections on it, which I hardly ever saw.
If you are interested in the meanings of freedom in digital technology, there are other places which may be better for you to debate this. In the UK, I know of the Campaign for Digital Rights and EDRi.org. Maybe a similar group exists near you. This group (FSFE Discussion list) may sympathise with that sort of group, but has shown its disinterest in debating Yet Another Definition of Freedom before. I suggest that this isn't the best place to do that.
MJR
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 04:12, Rainer Trusch wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
answer two small questions:
What is freedom?
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases without restricting the freedom of any fellow human being.
I give you another version:
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases
Well anyone's freedom stops where another's one start. There cannot be _total_ freedom in every field, it's just a balance beetween your freedom and another one's. Control is another thing.
What is freedom for?
Why, to live a long and prosper life, what else?
It's an aspect :-), but you can have it even in a dictatorship, if you have the right position.
The question might sound stupid, but in a society freedom has meaning and a function and this is changing during times. Okay, it's geting a bit abstract, but that shouldn't be forgotten.
No, basic freedoms do not change. Free speach do not change, it can be vetoed, and people that speak freely can be prosecuted, but the meaning of free speach does not change. And the same is (imho) for the 4 basic freedoms of free software. You can be against them, but their meaning is clear.
I don't really see what's your problem. Fredom is a quite simple and basic thing...
I don't agree. It is getting really complex, even from these few sentences. Off limits is a quite common form of freedom and everybody carrys his/her own version of freedom the head. You can easily damage another person with a misuse of free speech without limiting his/her freedom.
Limiting free speach is not good, never. Having rules that may ask you to repair if you say maliciously bad words about other people may have sense, but only as it is do not become a masqueraded arbitrary limitation of free speech.
We have to take care about our relationship to these points. All our ideas about freedom, free speach, democracy derive from times when we didn't have all that. But this is more or less gone and keeping a strong relationship to an every day issue is always difficult. Moreover we are facing an increasing 'misuse' of our freedoms.
"Misuse" of freedom? Interesting concept, can you explain how freedom can be "misused"?
I don't want to stress that to much, but if the term freedom is so excessivly used and a basic idea, there should be some reflections on it, which I hardly ever saw.
You should not mix freedom and control, and freedom is claimed so "excessively" later only because it is at a risk, and being effectively limited by governments and corporations. The 11 September tragedy help a lot people that want to limit freedom unfortunately, as an example Microsoft both in USA and Italy is trying to instill fear uncertainty and doubt against free software (FUD) by saying this kind of words in public: "oh I'm so surprised that Al Quaeda has not yet control of missile facilities or key state structures as the code is in the wild and anyone can see it." or their deposition in antitrust case where one of the head directors of MS said that they cannot reveal any code because it would pose a national security problem and terrorist could make lot of damages as the security of that code is very low. Or similar words that take the last fall tragedy and terrorism as shocking words.
Freedom is really a basic concept per se, instead today application of freedom may be tricky and not trivial as it should be, because of many interests of those people that want more control than freedom.
Simo.
On 5 Jul 2002, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 04:12, Rainer Trusch wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:29:18PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
answer two small questions:
What is freedom?
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases without restricting the freedom of any fellow human being.
I give you another version:
To be free from the control of anyone to do as it pleases
Well anyone's freedom stops where another's one start. There cannot be _total_ freedom in every field, it's just a balance beetween your freedom and another one's.
Yes and no. Freedom is more than that. For example, I'm a proud advocate of the Freedom of the Nature. So you can ask : what is the link with Free Software ?
It's quite easy, the human laws shouldn't restrict that the nature bring impossible to forbid. For example, the immaterial's freedom is a fact of the nature. You can share immaterial data without having exclusion principle which you got with material data. (you can't have the same physical object two times in different place). (Off-topic subject is Quantum Computing, thanks)
The freedom of immaterial data is quite obvious for distributed information (yes, distributed information, privacy is another point like stated in the GNU General Public License with other words). So the four freedoms of Free Software can be easily explain with the nature's freedom. (Freedom #2 and Freedom #3)
What is freedom for?
Freedom is really a basic concept per se, instead today application of freedom may be tricky and not trivial as it should be, because of many interests of those people that want more control than freedom.
Freedom is an ethical issue, this is higher than any laws or restrictive concept. To protect Freedom we have to focus on the long-term vision of Freedom not specific case. For example, when we (ael) talk to politician regarding a specific issue, we talk about the long-term vision and after, only, we talk the incompabilities of the law with this """"vision"""".
Ok, it's a difficult matter...
adulau
Simo.