FSF promotes freedom with a closed Web site
Silly season is upon us.
The Free Software Foundation is on the warpath against Microsoft's launch of Windows 7, as CNET's Ina Fried reports, denouncing Microsoft for "poisoning education," "invading privacy," and other evils.
The irony is that the Web site used to promote this latest rant uses a license that prohibits derivative works, a cardinal sin in Free Software Foundation theology.
The site uses the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, which allows people to copy and distribute a page, but not to actually modify and improve upon it ("No Derivative Works--You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.")
This sounds reasonable to me, but has traditionally not sounded reasonable to the Free Software Foundation.
For example, foundation founder Richard Stallman was in Argentina on Wednesday and when mentioning Wikipedia, he suggested that the open-source ethos depends upon freedom of text/code:
Wikipedia's text is free. It is released under a free license. That is the aspect to me that makes it ethical.
The freedom to modify that text is an essential freedom for which the Free Software Foundation has spent decades fighting. It's the first freedom listed at the top of its site:
Freedom...as defined by the Free Software Foundation
(Credit: Free Software Foundation)But apparently it's not an essential freedom for its anti-Microsoft screeds.
I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but the Free Software Foundation's hypocrisy on this is galling. Its logic is also a bit wearing, as Download Squad notes. The Free Software Foundation wants to make lack of freedom the source for all ills. It's not. It's just a good start.
Against this sort of dogmatism is a much more rational response to competition with proprietary software: the Processing project's FAQ. Processing has been positioned by some as an open-source competitor to Flash, but Processing's developers refuse to be drawn in and respond:
We're not targeting the same audience Flash. If we wanted to make a Flash killer, we'd have set out to do that and our stated purpose would have been more specific (and we'd have more on the site about "Processing vs. Flash" in the competitive shootout sense... right now we just have information about how the syntax differs so that people can make the transition).
We could have saved a lot of time if we just wanted to build a better Flash. But as two people, do you really think we can or should bother competing with a company as large as Macromedia? Macrodobe? Does anyone really want a "better" Flash? We certainly don't, so that's not an interesting goal for us.
There are things that are always going to be better in Flash, and other types of work that will always be better in Processing. But fundamentally (and this cannot be emphasized enough), this is not an all-or-nothing game... We're talking about tools. Do people refuse to use pencils because pens exist? No, you just use them for different things, and for specific reasons. If Processing works for you, then use it. If not, don't. It's easy! It's free! You're not being forced to do anything.
How refreshing--that "reason" thing. It would be nice if the Free Software Foundation spent more time coding the changes it would like to see in the world, rather than writing to Fortune 500 companies to advocate they switch to Microsoft alternatives.
Put your code where your mouth is, Free Software Foundation. And make sure it's truly open to derivative works, while you're at it.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I mean, that entire site is full of half-truths, omissions and plain deception. Anyone reading that site will come away with a terrible view of Microsoft (so mission accomplished there), but that view will not be based on the truth.
For example:
"Microsoft regularly attempts to force upgrades on its customers, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, whilst changing the file formats used by its desktop applications, leaving many businesses in a position where they are forced to upgrade to continue to use the software and document formats they've invested time in."
Patently false. Not just a half-truth by way of omission, but outright deception. Here's why:
1) Office 2003 works with .doc, .xls, .docx, .xlsx (etc.) files (using a free plugin you can download from MS's site -- i.e. MS actively supports and enables this scenario)
2) Office 2007 works with .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx (etc.) files. Complete backwards and forwards compatibility. Hence nobody is forced to do anything either way for office.
3) Office 2003 is supported on XP, Vista, Win7
4) Office 2007 is supported on XP, Vista, Win7 -- hence no artificial pressure to upgrade to Win7
5) XP was released August 2001. Extended support for XP runs through April 2014. That's 13 years!!!
6) Vista released Jan 2007. Mainstream support continues till April 2012. Extended support will end 2017.
Yet the FSF says "Microsoft regularly attempts to force upgrades on its customers, by removing support". That's not a half-truth. That's deception. Note *regularly* *force upgrades* *removing support*. That's outright deception.
Your credibility just flew out the window. I hope it's wings were strong enough for flight.
" For example, do you remember that file formats O2003 and O2007 default to?"
>> O2003 default to .doc. O2007 defaults to .docx. This will only hinder compatibility if they cannot read each other's default formats. O2007 can read .doc out of the box. O2003 requires a free add-on downloadable from MS's site. I mentioned that in my previous post -- and yet you accused me of ommissions and half-truths.
"Your credibility just flew out the window. I hope it's wings were strong enough for flight."
>> We don't need to be so hateful to each other. Like I said, I explicitly mentioned the thing you accused me of omitting. Downloading a *free* add-on, (required only ofr O2003 -- O2007 is already completely compatible) is all that's required to interoperate between the two versions. The FSF's exact words were " force upgrades on its customers, by removing support for older versions of Windows and Office, whilst changing the file formats". I was much more honest than the FSF. I posted verifiable facts, mentioned the free plugin requirement, exact dates for mainstream and extended support.
I don't get it -- are you saying that I deliberately didn't mention that O2003 and O2007 have different default file formats? Well I thought everyone already knew that. I mean, if they used the same file format by default, why would we even be discussing interoperability?
@ odubtaig: I think sometimes we all get too entrenched in our positions and need to take a step back. If you saw something laughable in my post, I wouldn't mind hearing about it.
Simple really.
What was untruthful about my post?
Not to belabor the point, but I still don't think you've explained yourself.
You said:
1) "Dhavleak had credibility? The moment he started criticising anyone else's level of truthfulness I knew it was going to be funny."
2) "You accusing anyone else of being untruthful is like the Marquis De Sade accusing someone of sadism. Simple really."
3) "Awesome."
But you still haven't explained what was untruthful in my post.
To the contrary, the licensing of the windows 7 sins page is quite consistent with the FSF's position regarding documents. The FSF generally views the ability to control the software that runs on your system to be a fundamental right, thus the requirement to allow modification of software is embedded in their licenses such as GPL.
However, the same is not true of documents, especially those which are considered to be foundational documents representing the views of a single purpose, such as the GNU Manifesto. For example, Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto is licensed as follows:
"Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
Modified versions may not be made."
Reference: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
And it very amuses me that freedom-loving Richard Stallman is a best friend with Castro and Chavez.
Also your comment about Stallman being a commie, it's completely unjustified. Once Castro did make an obviously ignorant comment about free software, understanding it to be without price but not the aspect of the user being liberated.
2. it's not ignorant to say that stallman and chavez are/have been rubbing elbows
It's interesting that alegr once again goes for the personal attack without dealing with anything about what's actually said on the site. Many things can be said about Stallman but that doesn't make the FSF claims automatically untrue. Disprove them.
Please read the article Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html). You can still consider this stance wrong or hypocritical, but please don't pretend it's a new development.
Freedom to copy text, unless someone wants to modify it.
Freedom for all people to do what they want, unless they want to run companies.
Gets a bit old.
The only thing that get old is you retards lying about something you don't really understand.
well, doesn't this article do just that with no license at all?
we all love to get stuck with MS rather than the un-usuable FSF softwares that is "non-standard".
(My meaning of standard is most people using it...different from theirs standard which is made up
by a few guys in a back room somewhere).
Get loss FSF.
The only reason I can see is: avoid that our words are distorted by others. And so I do not agree with RMS and the FSF, because I think a CC-by like condition is enough to protect ourselves: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)".
Stallman has never said that all copywrited material needs to be released under a license which allows for derivative works. He only recommends that works which have practical applications?things like manuals and reference books be released under a license which allow for derivative works.
I just heard Stallman give a speech last week in Spanish (in La Paz, Bolivia) about copyrights. In the speech Stallman says that we should divide copywritable material into three categories:
1. Material with practical applications (software, manuals, reference books) should have a copyleft license.
2. Testimonial material (commentary, points of view) should have a standard copyright which doesn?t allow for derivative material, but it should be limited to 10 years.
3. Artistic material should have a standard copyright, but it should be limited to 10 years. It is important that artistic material allow for derivative works, but artists can wait 10 years before they are allowed to reuse and alter the material.
Clearly the Windows 7 Sins web page is testimonial material (category 2), so the FSF sees no reason that this material should allow for derivative works, because derivative works might distort their message and point of view. You can disagree with Stallman and the FSF, but don't accuse them of being hypocrits. They practice what they preach.
This criticism is entirely unfair. The FSF has done a lot of coding over the years. During the 80s it was dedicated almost exclusively to paying people to write free software. But payments and donations to the FSF largely dried up in the 90s once the commercial GNU/Linux companies came to the fore. People were no longer willing to pay $150 for a copy of the GNU toolset from the FSF, when they could get the entire operating system from Red Hat, SuSE, Slackware, etc. And people stopped feeling the obligation to send donations to the FSF because they thought that commercial companies would pay for the coding. It is people like Matt Asay who celebrated the success of companies like Red Hat which helped kill the funding to the FSF.
In the end, the funding crisis helped push the FSF away from doing the actual coding and more toward the position of advocating for free software generally and its ideals. But it is important to remember that a lot of people in the community are still do coding under the banner of the FSF. Ever visited the Savannah website? Ever used GNOME, gcc, GIMP or any other piece of software in the GNU project?
It really burns me up hearing an ingrate like Matt Asay criticizing the FSF. Since when did he ever create a text editor, compiler, and all the other GNU tools?
But it is important to realize that the FSF has largely fullfilled its goal of creating a free operating system. Now it has to keep that operating system free. If it wants to do that, it shouldn't focus on writing code--it should focus on fighting patents, DRM, copyright violations of its licenses, and proprietary nature of the cloud. Only in a few cases such as the development of GNASH and a free BIOS can the FSF fulfill its goals by coding. Besides plenty of other organizations are already doing the coding, so it is no longer necessary that the FSF do it.
Of course Matt Asay sees little value in the freedom of computer users, so he doesn't see any value in the work of the FSF today. And I wonder how much coding Matt Asay has ever done in his life to advance the cause of freedom?
- by imacat_tw August 28, 2009 1:16 AM PDT
- This post is referred in a Chinese news article http://www.zdnet.com.tw/news/software/0,2000085678,20140489,00.htm
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(44 Comments)