Run, Freedom, Run!

Pages: 1 2

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Comments

1. It’s not that software should be free, it’s that the public should be free.

   The public should be free to distribute and build upon published software.

   In order to do that, the software must be free of all encumbrance save that necessary to preserve the public’s freedom.

   So, ‘free software’ sets the public free from the otherwise draconian restraints imposed upon them by copyright.

   It’s unfortunate that there appears to be some kind of anthropomorphic sense of emancipating the software.

   If you focus too hard on emancipating the software you end up believing in the inherent justice of its rescue from people’s private domains, e.g. “Oh that poor software! It’s being modified and run behind closed doors - it is up to us to break down the doors and set it free!”

   Even Mr Stallman himself is in danger of excess:
   “The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it).”
   http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/21/linux-stallman-gnu_cx_dl_0321stallman1.html

   Oh dear. It is not the code that is wrongfully enslaved, but the public. Code is by definition mere instructions to our computerised slaves, society’s electronic servants, and society should be free to harness it - in private OR in public.

   We are freeing the public to use published code. We are not demanding that the public be prohibited from using and developing software in private. We are saying “If you publish, you may not restrain the public in their use of what you publish”.

   Posted by Crosbie Fitch on 15 August 2006 at 3:16 am

2. Hi, Crosbie. Thanks for stopping by.

   I enjoyed reading your article along this line at http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=35. I think I’m in agreement and would be concerned if someone tried to claim ownership of something I had not published.

   Then there is the question of what is publication and if free software licenses cover “web2.0” applications. I’d be very interested to hear your opinion on this.

   This is just a hit-and-run-on-my-way-to-work comment so maybe not well thought out, but my concern would be in loopholes that take away freedom. I mentioned in a comment elsewhere that I’m not worried about the software in web applications as much as I am the data and the ways of working with it. Would you agree that that part is public and should be free?

   Posted by Scott Carpenter on 15 August 2006 at 5:24 am

3. We’re on to the question of the Affero license.

   You can read some of my comments on the second draft of the GPL v3 license here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/

   I fundamentally disagree with the Affero clause because it requires violating a person’s privacy, i.e. “If you privately modify and publicly exploit this software, you MUST publish those private modifications, and if you don’t we will use the power granted by copyright to invade your premises, obtain evidence of preparing private derivatives, and prosecute you”.

   There are some who claim that public exploitation of software that one has privately modified should be included in the definition of ‘publication’ or ‘distribution’.

   This is absurd. If someone takes some blog software and uses it to create a web site, that web site doesn’t mean I can then take that site and use it for my own blog. This is because there is a key difference between receiving the software and seeing it being used.

   If I see a modified copy of my scrolling display software behind a shop window being used to list the shopkeeper’s latest offers, this doesn’t entitle me to call the police and demand a copy of the shopkeeper’s modifications.

   The Affero clause is simply a perverse reflection of the proprietary mindset, i.e. “This is OUR software and you shouldn’t be able to exploit it in public without releasing your private modifications as payment in kind”.

   This conflicts with the right of a programmer to make private modifications, demonstrate them and only release them in exchange for the compensation they require.

   The Affero clause says “All your private modifications belong to the public - the very moment you demonstrate them - you may not withhold them for any reason, including payment”.

   Now, all I’m trying to say is that the Affero is a distinctly different license than one that aims to restore the public’s freedom to enjoy unfettered use of published software.

   There may well be people who like the ability to prevent private modification of their software, and have the power copyright grants to prosecute this, but then these people should have their own license and not attempt to corrupt the GPL into tolerating their need to invade privacy.

   This is about recognising the human right to privacy, i.e. that people have a right to free use of anyone’s published software, but NOT also to anyone’s private, unpublished software.

   So this is an ethical issue. I’m trying to point out that the GPL v3 is in danger of pursuing source code visibility with such zeal that it may not notice it is making an unethical incursion into individual privacy.

   No-one should have a right to bash anyone’s door down on suspicion that they may have made undisclosed modifications to ‘free’ software.

   Posted by Crosbie Fitch on 15 August 2006 at 8:13 am

4. As to data entered by the public, well that depends upon the site’s privacy policy.

   If someone enters data on the basis it remains private - it is processed/stored only for the benefit of that user - then that data remains restricted to the user and to the service provider (provided on trust). The SP may subsequently delete it, so they don’t necessarily have an obligation to reproduce it to the original owner at any subsequent time - unless they undertook to preserve it.

   However, if the service provider makes it clear that some or all data entered is for immediate or subsequent publication, then that’s fine.

   We’re really dealing with an agreement between two parties here, the user and the SP. The ethics of the situation are that the agreement is clear and upheld.

   What should certainly not happen is that the SP obtain title to restrict what others may do with the information it publishes that is based upon its users’ information.

   So, if someone has a blog site, they shouldn’t necessarily have the right to publish a book comprising blog entries along with the comments and consequently exert copyright over the comments.

   Ideally, as you do, there should be a share alike basis for user contributions (unless user and SP agree otherwise).

   Posted by Crosbie Fitch on 15 August 2006 at 9:03 am

5. I wonder if shifting definitions of publishing and hardware ownership might present problems. If we don’t own the software that Microsoft licenses to us, might we also in the future have hardware we don’t own, so that no software on it can belong to us? (I’m thinking of all the crazy ways the MPAA/RIAA/others would like to implement DRM — those known and those even more depraved that we haven’t even heard about yet.) We’d just be seeing things performed on it — maybe our personal finances. Interacting with it, but unable to do anything with it. It seems unlikely that people are going to want to go back to leasing their phones from Ma Bell, but we don’t know how things may evolve. This may be a whole ‘nother question, though.

   If there is a web application that uses a Java component on a local machine, is that component to be considered published and free?

   Thanks again for your comments — I appreciate the discussion.

   Posted by Scott Carpenter on 15 August 2006 at 4:14 pm

6. If the software is legitimately in your private domain, your house, whether in firmware, binary, or source code, and it is intended for you to utilise it, directly or indirectly, then that software has been delivered to you, and if based on GPL code, means you have a license to it.

   However, client side does not necessarily contaminate server side and vice versa. A license made prohibit such interoperation of course…

   Posted by Crosbie Fitch on 15 August 2006 at 5:35 pm

7. Scott,

   Finally checking out the site. Glad to see the rant on your hatred for the use - rather misuse - of the word literally. I miss hearing all those other great rants. Maybe I’ll soon see something on “utilize”.

   You know I’m no techie but I do run Open Office on my XP Media Center Edition. Does that count?

   Posted by Shawn on 31 August 2006 at 10:36 pm

8. oops…just now read comment #6 by Crosbie. My apologies about people using the term utilize (utilise).

   Posted by Shawn on 31 August 2006 at 10:38 pm

9. Hey, Shawn. It’s good to hear from you. I’m glad you decided to utilize the comment feature.

   “Hatred” is a strong word. Maybe “deep and abiding loathing” would be more appropriate :-)

   If you’re using Open Office then welcome to the revolution. Just be prepared to burn all licenses for Microsoft products when the secret code word is next utilized on the main page. The word is literally “literally.”

   Posted by Scott Carpenter on 31 August 2006 at 11:37 pm