Advanced

GNU Philosophy Drives Libre Licence Model

Posted by dcparris on · 15 comments
LXer; By DC Parris 		Mail this story
Print this story

  LXer Feature: 05-Jan-06

In light of Tom Adelstein's recent article, "Time to Cull Proprietary Software from Open Source Branding", LXer Editor, Don Parris, reminds users that the GPL exists for a reason.



Digg Story

LXer Editor-in-Chief, Tom Adelstein, wrote about the need to cull the proprietary software from the libre/Open Source software branding. His argument is that developers and vendors should not use libre software as a ruse to get free development and maintenance for their projects. He went on to say that vendors should make real contributions to the community, rather than paying lipservice to the concept. I wholeheartedly agree.



I hope that people begin to see why the philosophical element of libre software cannot be ignored. Eric Raymond and others have tried to push that aside. In the process, they are not advocating a lack of philosophy, but rather a different philosophy. Open Source is not merely an approach to software development, although it is at least that. It is a rather different philosophy from Stallman's, even if the folks behind it won't acknowledge that. Whether they are intentionally disguising the issue, or blind to the reality is up for debate.



The libre philosophy is the foundation upon which Stallman built the house. Without the philosophy that drove Stallman to write libre software, we lose sight of the purpose - to keep software free (as in freedom). Free software drives innovation and services in ways that proprietary software will never do. Without the philosophy, one can only reach the conclusion - as Raymond did - that the GPL is no longer necessary. Once we reach that conclusion, we can begin to return to the non-free license model, and call the libre software movement a failed experiment.



Ironically, depsite the failures of many to capitalize on the libre license model, libre software is far from a failed experiment. There are too many major and minor GNU/Linux distributions available to even suggest that libre software has failed. I have long understood - and presume most of the community has also - that businesses would have to experiment heavily in order to develop successful business models. How many small-time consultants are in operation because of libre software? Look at the new computer manufacturers stepping up to compete against Dell, HP, and the gang, selling libre operating systems. It's coming together - slowly, but surely.



Many consider Stallman to be to eccentric to deal with. The correct term is uncompromising. He has to be uncompromising because so many out there are compromising his mission and vision - and sneering at him along the way. I wonder where the Christian Church would be today if Paul and the other Apostles had compromised their faith. The fact is, many no longer take the Christian Church seriously today because so many Christians are seen to compromise their faith. Where would America be today if the Continental Congress had compromised on freedom. America would still be subject to English rule had Washington cut a deal with Cornwalis. Stallman recognizes the importance of not compromising our freedom.



I will take issue with Tom's notion the GPL should be used exclusively. Stallman will not likely view Tom's association of the GPL with "Open Source" in any positive manner. However, Stallman recognizes the X-11-styled licenses (There are something like 70+ BSD licenses) as legitimate free software licenses. He may prefer to use the GPL exclusively, but he recognizes that non-copyleft licenses are still free software licenses. I will agre that we should stop allowing vendors to create custom licenses with various restrictions, and call them "Open Source", let alone "free/libre".



Whatever one thinks of Stallman, he developed a license and wrote code because he had a philosophy that drove him to do so. The philosophy did not derive from the code or from the license. The license conveys the philosophy. All licenses convey a philosophy. Legal systems are built upon and convey some underlying philosophy. When we compromise our philosophy, our faith, our freedom, we lose so much more. If your philosophy supports proprietary software, then supporting libre software is a compromise of sorts. It is interesting that proprietary developers tend to be willing to compromise their philosophy, while libre software developers tend to be far more dedicated to their philosophy. I wonder why that is?

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Editorial; Groups: GNU

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (15)

devnet ·
"Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of code—when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like government, must be transparent to be free—then we will look back at this uncompromising and persistent programmer and recognize the vision he has fought to make real: the vision of a world where freedom and knowledge survives the compiler. And we will come to see that no man, through his deeds or words, has done as much to make possible the freedom that this next society could have.

We have not earned that freedom yet. We may well fail in securing it. But whether we succeed or fail, in these essays is a picture of what that freedom could be. And in the life that produced these words and works, there is inspiration for anyone who would, like Stallman, fight to create this freedom."

Lawrence Lessig Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Someday, perhaps, people will understand what Stallman is really about. The only thing you have to do is look at his philosophy without bias. This is more difficult than anyone can perceive. Just as you mention Paul and the other apostles as uncompromising, so are today's digerati...stuck in their own concepts of free and open source software.

One can look at this just like one can look at the church (used generally to encompass Christianity)...Paul, Peter, and the first century Christians were uncompromising in their faith (as Stallman is uncompromising on his "faith/philosophy"). They had an unbiased and pure view of what Christianity truly is...they worshiped one God alone not a triune Godhead and there were clear lines that defined what Christianity is...lines today that are generally ignored by Christians. Thus, because Christians do not practice Christianity as those 1st century Christians did, Christianity is polluted and the message falls on deaf ears and people debate on what Christianity should be, just as today's view on what Free and Open Source Software is debated and Stallman's message falls on deaf ears.

Someday perhaps everyone will snap out of it.

Devnet
Read the whole comment
jimf ·
Well true "the philosophical element of libre software cannot be ignored" and the aspects of FOSS and the GPL are a serious ethical, legal, and political issues which need to be discussed and addressed. But when you talk about 'faith', and 'uncompromising', and start treating the subject as religious dogma, you enter into the realm of the fanatic, and, demonstrate why many don't give Stallman much credence.

Sorry Derrick, frankly, it just creeps me out.
devnet ·
No problem Jim...

It creeps me out too :)
gnufan ·
Considering Stallman is an atheist, I find the biblical metaphors quite amusing, but nevermind that - just a random thought.

Though I do agree with most of what has been said here, I can't see that it will ever be possible to push the philosophy of a few, on to the many who just jumped up on the bandwagon.
jimf ·
gnufan,

Atheism is as much a religion as any other :)
gnufan ·
jimf - Atheism has never been a religion. An atheist may be religious though. No more off-topic chatter from me.
jdixon ·
> Atheism has never been a religion...

It may not be a religion (the point can be argued), but it is as much a belief system as any religion is.
jimf ·
jdixon, exactly.
gnufan ·
> It may not be a religion (the point can be argued), but it is as much a belief system as any religion is.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/belief.htm - IS ATHEISM A BELIEF?

Had I known that my observation would spawn a pseudo philosophical debate on the definition of atheism, I wouldn't have posted it at all. I apologize to all who've witnessed this.
jdixon ·
> IS ATHEISM A BELIEF?

The definition of atheism they're offering doesn't seem to match the one in common usage. The common definition is one who does not accept the existence of a supreme being (i.e., God). Whether or not you believe in the supernatural as a generic concept, unicorns, or UFO's has nothing to do with it.

The definition they're offering is actually closer to that of the agnostic, who merely claims that he does not know if a supreme being exists or not.

I consider the agnosticism to be the only valid intellectual position, since by definition a supreme being could make it impossible to prove his existence. Fortunately, we do not live by intellect alone.
alc ·
"Had I known that my observation would spawn a pseudo philosophical debate on the definition of atheism, I wouldn't have posted it at all. I apologize to all who've witnessed this."

Sometimes philosophical debate gets us looking at things that we wouldn't otherwise think about.I can't speak for anyone other than myself,but I see no reason for you to apologize.
dcparris Story submitter ·
Frankly, I had hoped for more discussion around the GNU philosophy than around a religious debate. It's true that many "just jumped on the bandwagon". That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught why there is a bandwagon to jump on. I was one of the folks who just jumped on the bandwagon - quite literally as a freeloader. It was only after I decided I needed to learn more so I could write about this stuff that I began to explore the meaning of it all.

As I began to read Stallman's writings, I realized I had never even considered whether agreeing to a EULA could be either good or bad. I just accepted that was the way things were. So, I've come a long way myself.
jimf ·
"I realized I had never even considered whether agreeing to a EULA could be either good or bad."

Suprised you had to go to Stallman... Just reading the EULA is enough to get you to realize it's just 'wrong'. As soon as I realized I had a choice, I was out of there. But then, few people do read a EULA, they just click on the agree button.
sharkscott ·
Here is my attempt to get this thing on track. :-)

The first Christians believed that through Jesus they were one with or had direct access to God. It was through their belief in Jesus that it was true for them.

It is similar to Stallman's concept in that he believes that the user should be one with or have direct access to the creator of the software.

I may find Stallman hard to swallow every once in a while but I do agree with him on this issue. If he doesn't make a stand, no one will.
dcparris Story submitter ·
jimf, I never read the agreements in their entirety. Like most users, I just agreed so I could use the software. Glad I'm awake now.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post