(Disclaimer: this post rambles. It also doesn't address the Open Source vs. Free Software debate.)

I spent some time today on Slashdot where a fierce discussion occurred regarding an interview with Richard Stallman. One of the posters (Cally) had previously asked the question (paraphrased), "How do MS employees deal w/ making non-free (as in liberty) software when it's so detrimental to society?" Needless to say, this person got nailed hard, essentially being compared to a commie-pinko-rat-fink .

(On a side note, nobody ever noticed that Cally was from Britain. In my experience, people from Britian come in two forms: neo-anarchists and emperial, big-brother wonks. This person appeared to be of the former group. Apologies to you UK people if you are neither. I guess it's similar to considering everyone in the US either a Democrat or Republican.)

Most people (Americans it appeared) basically said that writing Free software denied programmers from making $$ because anyone could have the source code for free, whereas Cally tried to keep the focus on the idea that, ignoring financial concerns, aren't Free-as-in-liberty products better?

So, now to my point (finally ). I think the problem many people have is the oft-stated confusion arising from the fact that English doesn't have enough words, specifically something to distinguish between free-liberty and free-beer. And, IMO, Americans aren't being taught responsible citizenship in school (or society); hence free speech and liberties are words associated w/ lawsuits but hold no intrisic value to people. Ergo I created the following analogy in the hopes that it makes more sense:


Personally I haven't decided how I feel about Free software. I like the ideas, but everytime I read something from RMS, he ends up sounding like a religious zealot and the Free software movement is his religion.

I personally haven't messed with the source code to any of my Linux apps, but I like the thought that I have that option. And I know the frustration I get when I use Windows (especially at work) and realize that I can't even make simple changes to make the computer run faster.

So I guess in the end, I do like the Free Software ideals. I guess the big problem is teaching people that, rather than spending $ on proprietery software, they should buy Free Software; yes, you can get it for free but you can't support freedom without sacrificing something.

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

(Here's a response I gave on my university's forums; another student had made a comment about how programmers/companies shouldn't have to give out there source code. Once again, people don't get the point between having freedom w/ your software and just "giving it away".)

According to RMS and the FSF, there is a fundamental difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software". Here's the link. Here's the main point of the article:

I understand where you come from, that companies & individuals shouldn't have to give out their "trade secrets". And I agree, to an extent. However, if all software were Free, then we wouldn't have to worry about piracy and other illegal activity.

The main thing about Free Software is that it's about personal freedom, like freedom of speech or freedom of the press. If people could be convinced that paying for freedom, whether it's laying down your life for your country or spending $40 for a Free software application, the ideological implications are the same.

Having said that, I'll play the other side too. I as a programmer have the right to do what I want w/ my software. I spent the time to come up w/ the idea and code it so I should be able to keep that knowledge secret and charge people to use it. If I make it Free, then people have no incentive to pay me for my work since they can just get a copy from someone else. If I code as a hobby, perhaps it's not that big of a deal. If I'm trying to make a living at it, then odds are I won't make much $.

I think the biggest thing about the whole idea is choice. You hear this all the time from the OSS people, but if you really sit down and think about it, it's true. If you have paid for the software, then you should have the right to do with it as you please. That's why people bootleg music and pirate software. They just need to be taught that, since they're already paying for proprietary software, they can afford Free software too.

(I'll admit, Free/Open-Source software doesn't have the same "quality" as commercial software, but if people's mindset can be changed, then there's more incentive to make commercial-grade Free software).

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

These are some well thought out posts Crystalattice. Thank You for that.

Now,


I believe this centers around the core problem/solution. The ideals behind this is that you have payed (if that is what the author desired) for the Free Software in question. Just because the source is at your fingertips and you have access to the correct compiler and you know how to compile it does not mean that you should circumvent the original author and release the software as your own. What I think it really means is that once you have purchased the Commercial Free Software you should be able to change it to fit your needs. A simple example might be,
"Your neighbor has a lawn mower."
"Your neighbor has loaned you the lawn mower in the past."
"Your neighbor does not lock their shed."
"You can use the lawn mower whenever you want."

These all fall under the Free sensibilities.

"You break the lawn mower."
"You have a yard sale and sell the lawn mower."
"You take the lawn mower and lock it in your own shed."

These seem to fall under the Piracy angle.

My point being, just because you can do something, should you do it? In my example something was made available to you thereby opening the door to abuse. Do you think your neighbor (after buying a new lawn mower) will ever let you near it again. I think not. So abuse of the system can change the system for the worse. Now, what if instead you borrowed the lawn mower and it ran badly. You take it to your shop and change the spark plugs, clean out the deck and put it back together. It it your lawn mower now? No. Will your neighbor be more likely to loan you something else? Probably so. Have both parties benefited from this? Most definately.

To get back to the software example. What if to protect themselves the author obfuscates the code and build options so as to make it nearly impossible to build on your own. Does this still fall under the definition of Free? Maybe technically but not realistically. So what it really boils down to is to make a thing like Free Software work there has to be some morality issues that need to be dealt with. Why does it seem that there is less and less Shareware available these days? Because a large portion of the peple that use the software never pay the fee. If more people build there own version (people that have a real need for the software that is) and possibly even market it for sale screwing the origonal author in the process than we will not see Free Packages and the end user will not be able to add that "man I really need this option" thing that will make your version so much better for you. Then where are we? Right back at the starting line without the thing we were really after in the first place.

So, if you believe in the Free Software Movement and you find something that you really can use, why not pay for it and modify for your own use. You don't have to make the source available to the entire world. You just have to have the source available to those that desire it. When you purchase the software for your own use and then modify it to your needs but it never is re-released to the general public I don't think you have broken the chain. If you want to release it to the world all the better but I really don't think that is what the FSF means by free software. Perhaps you do this for work and one of your end users desires some changes. They could find the source and release it unto the world (based on the FSF ideals) but how often would this be the case?

Well, I may have lost track of where I was but these are just some of my thoughts on this very interesting model for Commercial Software. Think before you steal and if your should be paying for it just pay allready. Supporting these types of software is good for everyone but like anything good people will always find some way to F*** it up. Just don't be one of those people and help the movement instead of hindering it. We may not be able to change the world but we can make changes to our own little bit of it.

Mark

__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work."
--Thomas Alva Edison
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
"A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes."
--Hugh Downs

I see you're points but disagree to an extent. Getting the original source then modifying it for your own use doesn't help society as a whole. All you're doing is helping yourself. Yes, you can release these changes, but (correct me if I'm wrong) you're implying that it's a personal choice to release the changes. Free Software gives the following rights:

• 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.

So, you could use the software in the manner you state, which isn't necessarily wrong, but it violates the ethics of Free software. What I'm reading at the Free Software Foundation is that people are encouraged to use the source code to make changes for their personal needs, then give those changes back to society by releasing the modified code. (That's where most of the Internet techology came from, AFAIK). That way everyone benefits from all developments, rather than a select few. It also prevents forking of software, e.g. Unix.

However, I do feel that Free software licensing (such as GPL) needs to be modified to encourage profitability. I agree with forcing people to make their code changes public but there needs to be more (financial) incentive to create Free software. This is where everyone runs into the problem of "why should I make my code Free? I won't make any money." Because of the FSF's Freedom #2 (redistribution), people will always be able to get a free (gratis) copy of the software. I agree with this in the sense of my music analogy. But, as the argument goes, if everyone does this then none of the programmers will make money.

I believe that RMS came up w/ this idea because, at the time (late 60's, early 70's), the anti-establishment, power-to-the-people movement was in full swing; additionally, RMS was working at MIT where proprietary commercial software wasn't the norm and schools had to maximize their resources (as if they don't anymore ;-) ). This idea is now displayed in the form of shareware which, as you said, isn't profitable.

So there's two options: Free software should remain more as hobby programming or financial "insurance" needs to be incorporated into the license. (Actually, I guess there's another option: encourage people to spend $ on Free software vs. proprietary s/w). I just don't see how to reconcile the freedom of giving a copy to your friend w/ making money and not end up at the "shareware problem".

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

I'm not entirely sure where I went awry with my example but I think I see (not exactly clearly but hey, ) what you are getting at. If anyone makes any change for any reason than you are obligated to release back into the mainstream so that anyone can work off these changes. Maybe it is just that I don't entirely agree with the crazy pinko hippy-types at the FSF. (actually I do agree) If that is the case than there should be hundreds of thousands of versions of the same (nearly anyhow) program. It just seems to my peanut brain that this would make things worse not better. I believe that if you want to use Free Software and your changes are not really of a type that create better s/w but make it more usable by you what is the real benefit to the world at large. The benefits to you may be large but does that create a moral obligation to make it available to all? Do you think that if you take some software, add a choice so you can do a single task a little more efficiently that the source would need to be put on the FSF website to adhere to the ethics of it. This seems counterproductive. What would end up happening when you have to go through 200 versions of essentially the same software? Most likely you are looking for the original and if you are not redistributing said software but merely using it locally than the changes don't seem to violate this agreement. If you want to give it to a friend and give them the source how likely is it that it will just sit compressed on their hard drive doing nothing but taking up space. Granted, if someone wanted the source of your version you would have to provide it. Doesn't the FSF say that if your changes constitute an improvement that could be beneficial to others then you need to make the changes available for the community at large? That seems to me to cover things like a drastic change in how the original handled something (like maybe speeding up searches or something like that) not every little change. Once again, I may be off base, please correct me if I am wrong.

I actually think we are arguing for the same thing. I just think we are both looking at A+B and coming up with slightly different interpretations. One thing that we do seem to disagree on is that by being forced by the FSF secret police to give back any stupid change based on the Free concept. We also seem to have varied opinions on the state of these releases. I don't think that releasing Freely your changes you are really hurting yourself on a commercial basis. More exposure means more possibilities to have someone say, "I really like this and I think I will pay the author." But I can be a bit of a commie-pinko-hippy myself.

__________________
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work."
--Thomas Alva Edison
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
"A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes."
--Hugh Downs

You're right. I see the error of my ways. :-P Naw, you're not obligated to put small changes back into the distribution line. You can submit your small changes to the code "moderators" and hope it gets included, just like making requests for features or bug fixes.

You can use the code and tweak it to your heart's content but if someone wants a copy of the source, you have to provide it. If you make changes for yourself and think they may be useful for the community, then perhaps you have a moral obligation but I don't believe it's a requirement.

I think it comes down to, if you make changes, submit them to the project maintainers for use in future editions. That way only one version is being used as the "official" version. You can see that now w/ unofficial software versions not being supported by a company but they aren't stopping the creation (think the modding community for video games). This would limit the number of versions out there.

It's mostly just a matter of giving back to the community that helped you out. And it only makes sense; someone could make improvements on your code which in turn helps you out again. I don't think the FS gestapo will knock down your door if you don't release a custom tweak, but you should consider: if it's useful to you, it might be useful to someone else.

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

Interesting discussion. I'm not sure exactly where I stand, but here are a couple comments I have on what's been said:

And if there were no stoplights and drivers licenses, there would be fewer illegal drivers.
If everything you own was free, there would be no theft.
I obviously don't care much for the sentiment.


The first sentence I agree with. The second though, if the software is useful, someone will come up to you and say "I like what you've done with those programs. I'd like to have you develop a program for me on a contract basis." You now get $ for programming directly to a need.


Another statement I completely disagree with! Many Free/Open-Source software blow the doors off commercial software. In fact the only difference between many free/open programs and commercial is that a company name goes on the software. It's still the same guy writing the code.


Absolutely. It isn't your software. You didn't create it. You therefore (morally) can not distribute it as your own even with modifications.


I beg your pardon? This is exactly what forking is... Multiple versions of almost but not quite identical software. cable points this out in his next post.


Here's the shining star of this concept. Submit the changes so the original developers can add it to their baseline. And if it's a specialty change (of limited use but still useful) a sub-version can be held in the repository.

And as for being obligated to submit your changes, I think not. If the change I make is to aid in processing a very specific task of my own devising, it's not useful to anyone but me.

__________________

During the election they said Obama could only be elected when pigs fly. Well, we currently have an epidemic of Swine Flu. Coincidence?

I'm not a good debater, that's why I try to link to Richard Stallman's postings when I can. But I'll do my best. (I'll also try to play both sides when possible).

I also want to clarify something: the original idea for this topic was to create an analogy for people to better understand the ideas of the Free Software Foundation. However, I'm not a shill for the organization. All of my comments are based on what I've learned in the past 2-3 days and are my opinions. And since I've only been looking into this recently, some of my observations may be wrong; if so, that's cool, I can change my opinion.

Right now, I think I align more closely w/ the Open Source Initiative people than with the Free Software Foundation. I personally think that, to an extent, the FS movement is borderline religious, but I do agree w/ many of the principles. In the end, I'm trying to form my own "personal compass" on these issues by trying to see both sides of the issue, and maybe help others solidify their stance.


You're right, however I don't believe the issues are the same. Free software is created within the designs of the Constitution's First Amendment. The Constitution doesn't prevent laws regarding theft, speeding, assault, etc. It does prevent the infringement by the gvt. on individual rights. If people believe information should be free (hence freedom of the press and freedom of speech), I believe the same thing could be considered for software. In the early days of computers, to the best of my knowledge, s/w was shared between people to further the knowledge of computers. Only relatively recently has s/w been considered proprietary.

Software isn't a tangible object but a collection of algorithms, or information. Piracy is only a legal term; the common law definition being the stealing of property. By that definition you can't pirate information, only the media it's on. The purpose of Free software is to advance society by allowing everyone equal access to knowledge or information. Considered on just that merit, is it morally right to deny society access to software code? Or to punish people for learning or advancing knowledge by studying the works of others? Would society be where it is today if the "great ones" of the scientific past hadn't shared their knowlege? I leave that as a philisophical question.


There is nothing stopping people for charging what the market will bear for Free software. RMS even has a paper on it. So then the real question to my first sentence becomes, "Do I feel morally obligated to let people use my s/w as they desire?" If you can make a profit for your work, then why not set it Free? If you're skills sufficently impress someone and they hire you to work for them, then so much the better.


I forgot the word "much" when I typed this, so let me rephrase it: Much Free/Open-Source s/w doesn't have the same "quality" as commercial s/w. To expound, and defend, the F/OSS community creates many, many programs. Just look at Sourceforge.

Now, I'd say roughly 90% is in a beta version (< v1.0) so naturally it isn't as polished as the stuff in stores. However, users by-and-large have a mindset that "ugly" software isn't as good as the commercial products. Think of how people feel about console programs and the great effort put into GUI's.

Yes, there are some high quality products in the F/OSS world, but average people probably won't find many of them because it's ugly .


Again, I agree but I think the argument is missing the point. If you firmly believe in the Free Software Movement, then (assuming the original code is Free), then perhaps it is your moral obligation to release the changes. Just make sure credit is given as necessary to previous authors and don't claim it as your original work. That's the purpose of GPL, to ensure the community owns the software, not a single entity.


Sorry, I may have not completed my thought process . If all modifications to code are made to a single "chunk", then it will never fork. I didn't mean to imply that everyone who makes a change to the code is free to release it as a new version. That would be stupid, obviously. When I said people should consider releasing their personal mods back to the community, I meant give them to the "code moderator" to incorporate into the next version, like the work on the Linux kernel.


I can't argue this point because I don't know what the "right" thought is from the FSF. Personally, I think it's a matter of personal choice (as usual ;-) ). If you don't think your changes are worthy enough for inclusion in the next version, or if they won't benefit many people, then don't bother submitting them to the code owner.

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.

Me too. I'm not commenting on FSF nor Open here. Simply the concept that if I use code that someone else wrote and has given me the source...


Unfortunately, the concept of First Amendment here is valid, but the US Constitution cannot be used as the yardstick, only a yardstick. Remember, there is only one country with The First Amendment. Not even Canada has to subscribe to it. In this discussion, the only "law" we can use it the standard moral law of "If it ain't yours, don't steal it" because all countries have access to the same info/programs. The Internet has become the great leveler in non-govt interference and information dispersal.


Is it morally right to dictate that society must be given unlimited access to the concepts and tools it took me 15 years to analyze/research/create simply because it's non-tangible? A philisophical rebuttal. ;-)



And much commercial s/w doesn't have the same "quality" as Free/Open-Source s/w. I turn your attention to MicroSludge


"Ugly is in the eye of the beholder"

Yes, and they pass up phenomenal programs simply because they don't have pictures to click on. They are the ones that are missing the boat by passing up small, concise programs you can still carry around in your pocket on a floppy instead of multiple CD's that must be installed before you can do a 2 minute job on your customer's PC. To paraphrase Frank Zappa "console programs aren't dead, they just look funny"

__________________

During the election they said Obama could only be elected when pigs fly. Well, we currently have an epidemic of Swine Flu. Coincidence?

1. Once again, I agree. Free software may have been designed along the lines of the US Constitution, but not everyone will subscribe to the idea that the Consitution is the best model. I believe the best method is to agree to whatever conditions the person giving something sets. It's their "stuff" and if they don't care if you change it, use it, sell it, copy it, etc. then that's fine.

To make a blanket statement, people will always try to use any methods available to place their power on others; they will coerce others to act in ways that are beneficial to themselves. Copyleft, the US First Amendment, and other examples of personal freedom were developed to limit that type of abuse. Ideally, people would consider these freedoms when creating something and allow the world to use it with no limitations, but we all no that will never happen.

2. Is it morally right to coerce people to give up their life's work for the betterment of humanity? Most traditional scientists (and Free software advocates) would probably say "yes". Most corporations, "power-mongers", and "money-grubbing scum" would say no. So it just turns into a philisophical debate.

3, 4, & 5. Quality and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. You may have a Ferrari kit-car but if it has the engine of a Ford Taurus, is it really a nice car? Conversely, if I have a beater-mobile that runs great, is that a better deal? You decide.

IMHO, OSS does have higher quality products than, say, MickeySoft. Console apps often have more "power" because they're not bloated warthogs of a program. And just because a program is in beta or hasn't reach v1.0 doesn't mean it's not a great program; look at how well Firefox did or even the ndiswrapper program for WLAN cards. Non-commercial software is better able to identify a problem and fix it simply because it doesn't have to deal w/ consumer marketing issues. People do need to understand that bigger and prettier don't mean better.

To create another analogy , consider the resurgance of retro video games. Today's games may have tons of eye candy, but mostly they're just variations on a theme. "Old school" games may look ugly but they are classic because they were original, good games with a high replay value.

As a final thought, I will use whatever tools work for my needs. If I can support the F/OSS movements, that's great. But if the application I need isn't available, I will use proprietary s/w. Additionally, the F/OSS world needs to realize that hunting through 15000+ programs for the one that I need isn't a reasonable request. A high-quality replacement to a proprietary app may be available, but it won't be used if it's not known.

__________________
Start Programming with Python-A beginner's guide to programming and the Python language.
-------------
Common Sense v2.0-Striving to make the world a little bit smarter.