But! I agree with Stallman when he says that it’s important for people to value freedom or they may let it slip away. I like that he makes it into a big deal.

It’s kind of like this country–the positive election results notwithstanding–people seem more interested in convenience and (imagined) security than in civil liberties.

I believe the freedom (as in liberty) - of information (and software and documentation) is a worthy and noble pursuit that I am obviously after. But, I believe the open source and free software sides both want this and both sides understand that even technical people must eat. So, I am honestly at a loss what the fuss is all about. (I realize this admission identifies me as a heretic, but, I must admit, I am where I am in my understanding.)

I do get a bit worried when I hear someone describe their position as “pragmatic” and “realistic.” To me it signals compromise. Of what? I have no idea.

(And let’s not going in to the special problem with software, where once copyright finally runs out, we’ll have irretrievably lost much of our early computer legacy due to obsolescence, to the great loss of culture. Not a good return to society.)

I think about this monopoly power in relation to music. I’d be happy to pay for music what I think is a reasonable rate for a downloaded file sans DRM: $0.25 to $0.50. I’m sure some people would object to me defining what is reasonable and under what conditions I may copy and use it, claiming that it is not up to me, and that if I don’t like the conditions, no one is forcing me to download it.

But of course music isn’t perfectly substituted with other kinds of music. If I want to “own” copies of songs from the 70s and the 80s that I grew up with and that have nostalgic value to me, my options are limited. I think that as a member of the society that makes this bargain about copyright, I should have some say in how I might consume this common culture.

OPEN: The GPL is ideal for collaborative, publicly visible software development.

FREE: The GPL undoes copyright’s suspension of the public’s liberty, i.e. to build upon published software.

Perhaps if you’re focussed on the pragmatic aspects of collaborative software development, the principles that gave rise to the GPL aren’t uppermost in your mind.

It’s tricky pointing out to people that patents and copyright aren’t actually precious cufflinks to be treasured as if a gift from one’s father, but manacles.

I will not accept the enslavement of my fellow man, nor any imposition upon his liberty, as reward for the publication of my art.