Journal Reality Master 101's Journal: Stallman on Outlawing Non-free Software 7
I submitted this as a story to Slashdot, but they rejected it. Well, I thought it was rather interesting and newsworthy.
In this recent Slashdot story, I posted that I recalled RMS advocating outlawing non-free software. I couldn't find an exact reference, so I decided to pose the question to him, once and for all. My question and his response are reproduced below.
My letter: "In a nutshell, do you support legislation that require software companies to produce free software? Or to put it another way, should non-free software be outlawed?"
His response:
Those two questions are not the same. I would strongly oppose a plan to require anyone to produce any particular kind of software. Whether to allow proprietary published software is a different matter.
Restrictions on redistribution of software all ultimately rest on explicit government intervention, whether through copyright law, through technology contol laws such as the DMCA, or through enforcement of certain contracts. I would not be sad to see this cease. Requiring release of source code for published software could be justified as a consumer protection measure, like publishing ingredients lists and nutritional analysis for foods.
I would not oppose such changes in laws, but I don't particularly advocate them either. What I advocate is free software. I don't much care whether publishing proprietary software is legally permitted, as long as in practice it rarely happens.
To be honest, I'm somewhat disappointed in this response. This is the first time I've ever seen RMS squishy about anything. It's like he wants to call for legislation outlawing non-free software, but he's not quite ready to go that far.
So he either backed up my recollection, or he did not, depending on how you read his statement. Personally, I think that if you are even ambivalent about whether it's my right to produce -- AND MY RIGHT TO PURCHASE -- proprietary software, then you have very wrong ideas about what freedom is all about.
If I, as a private citizen, contract with another private citizen to purchase the right to use a particular piece of software, it is none of RMS's business if I decide that the source code is not a valuable part of the transaction.
Give Stallman Credit (Score:1)
If I, as a private citizen, contract with another private citizen to purchase the right to use a particular piece of software, it is none of RMS's business if I decide that the source code is not a valuable part of the transaction.
Yes, but what if you conclude that you *do* need the source code (say, that you would like to distribute a bug patch for the binary, or that you would like to understand a critical underlying algorithm, or that you would like to document the program's binary file format). If you then decide to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, modify, and redistribute your changes, is it the obligation of the rest of society to come pounce on you, waving the DMCA, a handful of bad patents, and all the other IP legislation? RMS says no, for the same reason that you can sign a contract pledging yourself to slavery, but the courts won't uphold it: society chooses not to recognize your "right" to pledge slavery through contract (and the "right" of a slaveholder to retain his contractually-acquired property) because society believes slavery to be "evil" ( == "bad for society, especially in respect to emotional utility values").
Instead of legal solutions (as you proposed to him in your email), I think RMS would like to see a shift in what people expect from software: if society as a whole saw that closed-source code threatens its (1) autonomy, (2) privacy, (3) security, (4) flexibility, and (5) rate of technological progression, then it would be much less enthusased on spending money to protect the (artificial?) bottom line of Microsoft and the rest of the BSA buddies [bsa.org]. This is quite different from outlawing propietary software altogether.
If Stallman appears to waffle, maybe it's because he's not as legally ruthless as the people trying to decrease our intellectual freedoms. Or prehaps he primarily worries about changing public opinion more than changing the law itself. Or it could be that there are some finer distinctions to be made regarding the nature of software and the role of law that Stallman has either (1) not successfully conveyed in his response or (2) has not yet made/found for himself. (I, for one, have trouble seeing how "those two questions are not the same".)
Or maybe he just wants to get back to coding... :-)
Yet ANOTHER clueless post by... (Score:2)
You clearly have not thought about this very hard. RMS does not advocate outlawing non-free software, because that would be pointless. If you were a lawmaker and wanted to get rid of proprietary software, you would just change the law so that copyright law didn't apply to computer software. Or repeal copyright law entirely. Either way, nothing would be outlawed. (Quite the contrary, in fact. Software previously outlawed under the DMCA would become legal again.)
Re:Yet ANOTHER clueless post by... (Score:2)
One of slashdot's token libertarian pro-Microsoft wingnuts.
1) I am not a Libertarian, and 2) I am not particularly fond of Microsoft's software (although I use it as the best solution in many cases). Oh my God! Could it be that you have no clue about me, and your own prejudices are clouding your judgment? Nah, that couldn't be.
If you were a lawmaker and wanted to get rid of proprietary software, you would just change the law so that copyright law didn't apply to computer software.
Wrong, and you miss the point. Changing and/or repealing copyright law would just allow people to copy software at will. That, however, would not meet Stallman's definition of free software.
More interesting to me is the question of requiring software companies to release source code (which, of course, has nothing to do with copyright law). Stallman doesn't come out strongly for it, but the fact that he's even willing to consider the idea is somewhat alarming.
The government has absolutely no business getting in the middle of an agreement between two private entities as two how they conduct their software business. If I want to purchase proprietary software without source code, then that is my right, as it is my right to sell it without source code.
I'm a bit confused here... (Score:2)
Would it be alarming if companies selling software for profit to mass market were required to hold source in escrow where the government can have it audited at will?
Perhaps your alarm would only arise if companies selling software for profit to mass market were required to publish source where anyone could see it?
Worse yet, perhaps you're worried a law will be passed saying no binary may be distributed without source attached, and fingers will be removed for non-compliance.
Perhaps at the other extreme, you're worried that any kind of restriction whatsoever (like restrictions on what can be sold as food) might be placed on companies selling software for profit to mass market for consumer PC use.
Well... now that we've talked about your worries, perhaps we can talk about what Stallman actually said.
Restrictions on redistribution of software all ultimately rest on explicit government intervention, whether through copyright law, through technology contol laws such as the DMCA, or through enforcement of certain contracts. I would not be sad to see this cease.
Essentially it seems here that he is saying he wouldn't be upset if all IP laws suddenly vanished from the books. Considering the harm they've already caused to freedom I, for one, wouldn't be upset either. I also don't find this particular sentiment in any way
Requiring release of source code for published software could be justified as a consumer protection measure, like publishing ingredients lists and nutritional analysis for foods.
Here he's saying that consumers may one day wake up and realize that a lot of the software pushed upon them has real garbage stuffed in with it, and requiring source might help control the crap. He's very careful to use the term "published", not all software just "published" software. Usually published means widely distributed, and more often then not it entails profit for the publisher. You'd have to ask him for a more precise definition.
Bottom line:
I would not oppose such changes in laws, but I don't particularly advocate them either. What I advocate is free software. I don't much care whether publishing proprietary software is legally permitted
Here he points out that he's not a lobbyist, and doesn't particularly care about how the law is structured.
One Caveat:
, as long as in practice it rarely happens.
This one caveat certainly is interesting, he seems to be saying that "in practice" he'd like to see most software be open software. This is a personal preference, and he certainly pushes for it with his own actions (starting the FSF and GPL) but at least he does us all the favor of not going about it with the kudgel of LAW.
However, I doubt his leaning to open source stems from a wish for communism or some sinister purpose, rather Mr. Stallmen (like most programmers) has spent years beating his head against the wall of proprietary interfaces and yearns for something better. (I for one much prefer the walls of my own ignorance and foolishness because they yield a bit when my head hits them enough times)
Perhaps his statement would read better if he said instead of "as long as in practice it rarely happens." to "as long as in practice I rarely encounter it."
There are whole sides of the industry that Mr. Stallman is little involved with and if asked would probably admit he cares little about.
Finally, I'd like to respond to part of your original notes.
If I, as a private citizen, contract with another private citizen to purchase the right to use a particular piece of software, it is none of RMS's business if I decide that the source code is not a valuable part of the transaction.
The problem here is that Mr. Stallman feels the "right" to use a particular piece of software may(not is but may) not be something that can be legislated. Once having a copy of software, running it, may be just as inalienable as taking your next breath (unless of course general purpose computers are outlawed...). You can certainly squander your money paying someone for air to breath if you like, but don't be surprised if you get laughed at, and don't expect everyone else to do it just because you do.
How Sad (Score:2)
I will waste a moment to feed you, because it is trulty pathetic to watch a starving troll trying to squeeze blood from a rock. Maybe you can find some nourishing goats in the shadow of the Slashdot protest week. Perhaps the Great Slackdot Blackout seemed trifling and patetic, but it almost gains a noble significance just knowing that you oppose it. I am actually going to waste my time toying with that "Friends" interface to see if I can gain any satisfaction, or at least obscure any of your future posts from polluting my display. While there are some trully entertaining trolls on Slashdot, you just reek of a desperation more pathetic than I can stomach.
I have already fed you far more than you deserve, but now for a little dessert I will make your nonsense patently obvious with a lame analogy. I don't particulary like Gefilte Fish. I think that all fish meant for human consumption should be of good quality. Perhaps I have been quoted as saying "Sushi is a very fine Japanese cuisine with a long tradition behind it. For good quality nigri sushi, you must use fresh or at least fresh-frozen fish, fish that does not harbor bacterial infestation from imporper storage."
Does that mean that when I say "must", I mean that you will be required to eat raw fish?
Plenty of things are worse than zealots espousing their ideals of freedom. Slanderous alarmists pretending to have a grasp on "Reality", for example. A Government drafting legislation that take away the very freedoms the Government was created to defend is even worse. An aged hacker who not only reminisces about the "Golden Age of software", but who has built the framework that allowed our current "Silver Age", is not a bad thing. He even still fights to allow a Second golden Age, by answering delusional muckrakers like yourself, where most reasonable men would have told the collective lot of you to "Go fuck yourself" long ago. His well considered response to your baiting could hardly be thought of as "shoving his version of ANYTHING down your throat." Not only did you ask for his opinion, but you deluded yourself into thinking that he supports legislation when he clearly stated he does not.
I would not oppose laws preventing Canadians from eating gefilte fish, but I would not particularly advocate them either. What I advocate is fresh fish in nigri sushi. Note that I am not a Canadian, so my opinion on their preserved fish consumption is irrelevant. RMS does not use proprietary software, and so his opinion on the legality of the sale of proprietary software is irrelevant. He is not ambivalent about your rights concerning proprietary software - he clearly states that he doesn't care what you do with proprietary software.
Now why don't you go ask a blind man whether pornographic drawings should be illegalized, and publically denounce him if he seems ambivalent about your rights to produce such drawings. And please, find something else to be indignant about, like capital punishment. While I feel the death penalty is wrong, I would not be opposed to any motions to have you caned. It's like I want to see you caned, but I'm not quite ready to go so far as to do it myself.
Re:How Sad (Score:2)
-David
Some free advice (Score:1)
I would recommend you do some reading of Locke, as well as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. You are right to say that you have a right to produce and to purchase proprietary software. Don't be offended when someone labels you a Libertarian for believing this.
You should also not be shocked that there exists a strong socialist undercurrent within the Free Software Movement. Taken to the extreme, in a country other than ours, this view could effect your rights being impinged. In the United States, however, laws such as the ones Stallman is ambivalent about WOULD NOT AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY.
Think about his example, labeling laws for foodstuffs. If you opened a canning business and made your living selling canned vegetables in your local area, you would not be subject to such laws. If, however, you decided to create an incorporated, interstate distributor of canned goods, you would be subject to these regulations.
The Libertarian philosophy is mistakenly interpreted to mean that EVERY company, regardless of size and scope, is free from government regulation. This is wrong. Libertarians espouse the benefits of a free market. Free markets are by definition stifled when one large company dominates. The balanced ideal, which you will find throughout the Constitution and to which I believe Stallman refers, is that there is a social "price" that should be placed upon large corporations.
Some of the benefits reaped by interstate corporations merely due to their economies of scale should go to their consumers in order to offset the negative effects of said corporations. The philosophy is founded upon the fact that, while an individual working out of his home makes very little use of contracts and copyright laws and such, large corporations are more dependent upon government services and legal instruments.
Corporations would not exist without the government. Copyrights certainly would not. It is not unreasonable to expect that those who rely upon such government services as enforcement of contracts and copyrights should pay a proportional amount in "regulation", if not to the government, then to society. Even today, contracts are not considered valid and enforcible unless certain requirements are met. In some instances, certain types of contracts are never valid.
What such rules would do is place a requirement upon copyright claims, without which such claims would be invalid. If you could find a way to release your proprietary software without the protections afforded by copyright and other laws, more power to you. Just don't come crying to the government when someone reverse-engineers your code.