Free Software and the Big Picture

by Tim Lee on April 4, 2007 · Comments

Mark Blafkin concedes I’m right that the GPL respects the freedom of users to choose whether to use proprietary software alongside free software. But he insists I’m missing the big picture:

This brings us to one fact that Tim got blatantly wrong. Stallman HAS attacked the OpenOffice team for relying on proprietary code in the past. This article from NewsForge chronicles the dispute over OpenOffice’s reliance on Java code and the FSF’s plans to rewrite the code to remove any of those dependencies.

Despite what Tim asserts, Stallman is not content with promoting his goals merely through persuasion and cooperation. The GPL comes complete with the copyright equivalent of land use restrictions that limit what you (and now your customers) can do with that software. It essentially says that if you build a new barn on top of your land (aka GPL Software), you need to share your designs with the entire world. Does that REALLY jive with traditional libertarian beliefs? The GPL is designed to force anyone who uses that software to accept the ideology of the FSF either for moral or pragmatic reasons.

If you look closely, what I said was that Stallman has never “criticized efforts by the Open Office team to allow free software users to use Microsoft Word documents.” Stallman’s criticism of OpenOffice for building atop a proprietary platform makes perfect sense in light of his focus on users’ freedom. Free software built upon proprietary software is going to be subject to any restrictions that apply to the underlying proprietary software. Since Stallman’s focus is on preserving users’ freedom to use software as they choose, this makes perfect sense to me. Stallman objects to integrating free and proprietary software, because it runs the risk of undermining users’ freedoms. But he’s never objected to interoperability between free and proprietary software.

But let’s talk about the big picture. As I’ve said before, libertarianism is not “marketarianism”:

Libertarianism is about reducing state coercion. It’s not necessarily about increasing the role of the market in every aspect of our lives. Of course the market is one alternative to statism, and an extremely important one. But other decentralized, voluntary forms of organization are important too. Peer production is one such example. But there are many others, including co-ops, private universities, think tanks, unions (providing membership is voluntary), churches, and charities. Libertarians should be celebtrating these institutions as alternatives to the state, not attacking them as threats to the free market.

Mark is certainly right that Stallman is an ideologue, just as many vegetarians, pacifists, and lots of other people are ideologues. But as far as I can see, the free software movement (like vegetarianism) is an ideology that’s perfectly consistent with libertarianism. I’ve never claimed that Stallman is a libertarian—he’s obviously not—but I don’t see anything about his work on free software that conflicts with libertarian ideals. There are plenty of libertarians who are also free software partisans, just as there are libertarian vegetarians and libertarian pacifists.

To take an example at random, the Amish are a private, non-coercive part of civil society. The Amish impose all kinds of requirements on its members that I personally would find intolerable. Yet no libertarian would write long screeds about how the Amish are a threat to liberty. As long as Amish people have the freedom to leave, and as long as they aren’t lobbying to impose their restrictions on the rest of society, there would be nothing libertarian about criticizing the organization of Amish communities. Amish people are exercising their freedom to organize their lives as they choose, and that includes the freedom to eschew many things that most of us consider essential to a modern economy.

Precisely the same principle applies to the free software community. No one has to use free software. But if you do choose to use free software, you have an obligation to respect the norms of the free software community. The Amish aren’t unlibertarian because they’re not organized around the marketplace and the profit motive. The market and the profit motive are an important part of any free society, and libertarians defend peoples’ right to participate in it. But we also defend peoples’ right to choose not to organize their efforts along commercial lines. Libertarianism is fundamentally about freedom—about opposing coercion by the state. Free software is no more coercive than proprietary software, and so there’s absolutely no reason to consider it less libertarian.

Comments Posted in: Open Source, Open Standards & Peer Production

  • Apologies for not being sufficient precise, but it should be widely understood here that the GPL primarily governs the copying or modification of GPL code - it doesn't attempt to require that licensees forsake proprietary software development, or even abstain from its use.

    Crosbie:

    I am certain you know the difference, however many here seem to forget that GPL is a voluntary contract, not some kind of regulation, and they wail and gnash their teeth as if the GPL was some kind of--God forbis--statist intrusion on their freedom when it is nothing of the kind.

    Sorry if I was cutting hairs too thin in my previous comment--it was a fine point.
  • enigma_foundry,

    As for the GPL not working without copyright, read my post again - where I say it evaporates in a puff of smoke.

    The GPL requires licensees to ensure source can be made available to legitimate recipients of their published GPL software. This is all I was referring to in terms of subversion.

    Apologies for not being sufficient precise, but it should be widely understood here that the GPL primarily governs the copying or modification of GPL code - it doesn't attempt to require that licensees forsake proprietary software development, or even abstain from its use.

    The GPL doesn't create a special class of copyrighted material or software. It's simply a standardised license that people can provide with the software that they publish.
  • The GPL achieves two things:

    1) It nullifies the suspension of the public's liberty by copyright and patent law.

    Not really true, the GPL won't work without copyright.

    2) It subverts the inclination of proprietary minded software developers to publish binaries without source code.

    No, they can still write their own proprietary code, and keep the source locked up in vault on the darkside of the moon, if that is their wont.

    Now, if Crosbie had prefaced his comment with the phrase "The GPL creates a special class of copyrighted material, in which...." then his comments would be more correct.

    But it is the all important fact that the GPL creates a special class of software, and compells no one, that makes the rhetoric here that continues to proclaim that the GPL 3.0 takes away freedom all the more wrong.
  • The GPL achieves two things:

    1) It nullifies the suspension of the public's liberty by copyright and patent law.
    2) It subverts the inclination of proprietary minded software developers to publish binaries without source code.

    Essentially the GPL contrives a community that can behave TODAY as if copyright and patent law had already been abolished.

    In other words if you abolish copyright and patent law:
    0) the GPL evaporates in a puff of smoke
    1) the public has its liberty restored
    2) there is no longer an incentive to publish binaries without source code

    Recognising 0 is easy.
    Recognising 1 is only hard for the brainwashed.
    Recognising 2 is difficult (for many).

    Anyway, the GPL's requirement for source code to be published if binaries are published is only necessary whilst copyright law remains.

    Once copyright is abolished, there is no need to create a new law to compel the publication of source code.

    The GPL may not seem very libertarian to some, but then it has to be restrictive precisely in order to counter the highly unlibertarian copyright and patent law.

    The shibboleth for libertarianism among the free software fraternity is to ask the advocate whether they are in favour of the abolition of copyright and patent law. If instead of abolition they favour retention in order to achieve the 'four freedoms', especially to compel surrender of source code, then they have lost sight of libertarianism in pursuit of dogmatism.
  • Richard, that general issue has been recognized since the GPL was first drafted. It has been 100% clear that the Free Software Foundation wants to use any powers of the restriction system in the service of openness. The point I'm making above is that this is their right as contract-drafters, and in fact is arguably a Libertarian form of activism (as opposed to the anarchist form of activism of trying to set a personal good example and usually failing).

    There's some influence on the Creative Commons stuff Lessig is doing, but I think you have cause and effect reversed.
  • Seth, I think the interesting paradox here (one of many, perhaps) is the fact that the new GPL treats FOSS code as intellectual property and seeks to restrict its propagation, all in the name of striking a blow against the efforts of patent- and copyright-holders' attempts at protecting their intellectual property through DRM and other means.

    GPL3 is so very way-too-clever it's as if Lessig had a hand in the drafting.
  • Ah, Tim, you wrestle with a fundamental paradox underlying Libertarianism - Should someone have the freedom to sell themselves into slavery?

    You're also butting up against another philosophical paradox of Libertarianism - when is it permissible to complain about the terms of a contract? Usually take-it-or-leave it is used by the powerful against the weak, and it's a demonstration about how much Libertarianism is in fact business-worship, that so many are flaming out when some tables are turned here (fun scripture rant: "Hey, you don't like the GPL, don't use the software - how dare you whiners try to restrict a CONTRACT, you fascist collectivists! Shows how much you really care about freedom, you interferers with free people making free choices!" :-))
  • Free software DRM is illegal because organizations like the DVD-CCA won't license it, and under the DMCA it's illegal to build unauthorized DRM software. Repeal the DMCA, and Linux distributions would start bundling DVD players with their software in a matter of weeks. How is that Stallman's fault that proprietary software vendors lobbied for legislation that effectively makes it illegal for free software that accesses DRMed content?
    Tim, can you clarify, perhaps by noting how:
    1) FOSS DRM is illegal,
    2) “unauthorized” has been treatd in DMCA 1201 case law,
    3) repealing the DMCA is necessary given that you are wrong with the first two points.
    Here is a start. First, qualify what you mean by DRM. If you mean DRM generally, then you’re obviously wrong; FOSS technologies can leverage encryption, a form of DRM. Second, “unauthorized” in the DMCA anticircumvention cases has pertained to systems breaking the intent of the circumvented DRM (by allowing unauthorized use or copying of media) rather than to the circumvention device being unauthorized. Third, can you offer a real reason to repeal the DMCA in terms of how it harms consumers or innovation; rather than Stallman’s four freedoms, which judging by your incessant rants against the DMCA, you hold dear to heart.
  • The perverse definition GPL3 seems to stress the idea that free software only wants to consort with free software, and the freedom of the software to avoid contamination

    I don't think that's correct--the GPL 3.0 is just trying to keep GPL code from becoming unfree, that is, stolen from the GPL commons. GPL 3.0 software can still interact with non-free software.
  • OK, it's a given that nobody has to use GPL code if they don't want to, so y'all Stallmanites can stop saying that in every comment as if it's some fresh new insight.

    The problem that Stallman's new license illustrates is that freedom is a complex issue, and it's therefore possible to define it in a number of ways. The perverse definition GPL3 seems to stress the idea that free software only wants to consort with free software, and the freedom of the software to avoid contamination is more important than any actual, you know, utility it might have in the real world of users and diverse kinds of software. It strikes me that this is not only ideologically rigid, it's naive and unrealistic.

    The fact remains that the BSD license, which puts no restrictions on how BSD code can be combined and re-used, is more free than any form of GPL. That is, it's free from the developer's standpoint. Stallman wants to handcuff developers in order to impose his vision of end-user freedom on them. I don't see that winning much support, as end-users aren't legitimately entitled to the freedom to steal, commit acts of terrorism, and do all sorts of other things.

    It's sad enough when engineers try to play god, but when foundation heads do it it's pathetic.
  • To take an example at random, the Amish are a private, non-coercive part of civil society. The Amish impose all kinds of requirements on its members that I personally would find intolerable. Yet no libertarian would write long screeds about how the Amish are a threat to liberty.

    That is an excellent analogy, and I used to often wondered why some libertarians seem to be anti-freedom when it comes to the GPL.

    That was until I started reading Tim's postings, and realized that some other libertarians were using libertarian ideology as a smokescreen--only favoring freedom when it allowed corporations to increase power, and then, as soon as a freedom popped up that denied large corporations power, watch out--gotta crush that freedom. See IPCentral for many examples of that.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I am ethnically Mennonite, which is a group related to Amish.
  • The GPL is designed to PREVENT users from choosing whether to use proprietary software alongside free software.

    This is manifestly NOT true.

    The only restrictions in GPL are there to present someone from doing something that would remove GPL softwarwe or a derivative from the GPL commons, or to put it another way, the restrictions are only there to prevent someone from stealing that GPL code, and making it unfree.

    If someone does not like the GPL, JUST don't use it.
  • I think the comparison of GPL'ers to Amish is extremely apt.
  • X. Trapnel, you at least additionally pointed out the fallacy of the public domain. :)

    1) There is no public domain - it is not a legal concept.
    2) Either works are protected by copyright, or they are not.
    2b) It is very difficult for a work not to be protected by copyright.
    3) It is the protection offered by copyright that is supposed to incentivise publication.
    4) It is the publication that is supposed to progress the science and arts - not the expiry of copyright's protection (as some might understandably assume)
    5) It's all a most unethical racket.
  • The only thing I conceded is that there is a loophole (that Stallman hasn't found a way to close yet) in the GPL that allows distributors to ship proprietary binaries on the same CD as free software, but they can't be part of the same program/system. The GPL is designed to make it as difficult possible (and GPLv3 more so) to run both proprietary and free software at the same time.

    In other words, as I said previously, the GPL respects the freedom of users to choose whether to use proprietary software alongside free software, as long as free software isn't incorporated into proprietary software. If Stallman considered this a "loophole," why didn't he add language to the GPLv3 to prevent bundling proprietary software on the CD?

    What you're missing is that achieving interoperability with proprietary software OFTEN requires the USE of proprietary software. DVD player software is just one instance that requires the use of properietary code to achieve interop. It is the reason while you will NEVER see a Free Software version of a legal DVD player. And yes, he has objected to the creation of any Free Software that includes DRM technology...and interoperability is often a function of being able to use/read DRM. Even if you hate DRM, you must admit that it is a form of interoperability that Stallman is clearly against.

    This is completely backwards. Free software DRM is illegal because organizations like the DVD-CCA won't license it, and under the DMCA it's illegal to build unauthorized DRM software. Repeal the DMCA, and Linux distributions would start bundling DVD players with their software in a matter of weeks. How is that Stallman's fault that proprietary software vendors lobbied for legislation that effectively makes it illegal for free software that accesses DRMed content?

    Moreover, there are proprietary DVD players that are shipped with particular Linux distributions (Linspire and TurboLinux, I believe), and as far as I know, the FSF has never tried to get them to stop doing so. Got any other examples?
  • Doug Lay
    Mark:

    Never is a long time. And it's not polite to shout.

  • That's great, Doug! Too bad you're not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not legal :-)

    But, I'm sure you get my point.

  • Doug Lay
    Mark:

    I have DVD playback software on my Linux box that's completely non-proprietary and can play all my DVDs. I regard it as perfectly legal.
  • Again, as I have said before, the problem would go away if things were structured to treat IP as real property only with state-imposed artificial scarcity. If the law would not grant protection to the EULAs, and instead treat sold software as analogous to physical property sales, granting the user full control over it for their personal or company use, it'd be fine. It's only an issue because copyright expansionists want to circumvent societal norms about property sales, actions that would find intolerable if done with all physical goods, that we have this problem. Sell the software like it's a physical good. No license, user can modify it for their own use. One CD, one copy at one time. Make it behave like real property in the eyes of the law.

  • Steve, I am NOT condemning the GPL. I was merely trying to correct Tim's misunderstanding of the way the GPL works and his inaccurate assertion that the GPL does not effectively force the FSF ideology on its users.

    Proprietary, Open Source , and Free Software developers (the only exception being those using BSD and Public Domain licenses) put restrictions on how you can use their software. They have every right to do so.

  • Mark Blafkin states: "The GPL is designed to force anyone who uses that software to accept the ideology of the FSF either for moral or pragmatic reasons.". This statement seem bizarre for very time I load software I am greeted with and EULA that deprives me of any rights. If the conditions of GPL are considered worthy of condemnation, I would hope, in the name of equality, that Mark would take an active stance against EULAs.
  • The rights GPL takes away from potential modifiers of code are rights that anti-IP libertarians, as well as anti-IP others, don't think *anyone* should have in the first place.
    Exactly, the GPL is about taking away freedoms as much as it is about freedoms; specifically, the GPL is about replacing freedoms that stir innovation, consumer welfare and societal progress with Stallman's four freedoms. The GPL is not about absolute freedom, productive freedom or utilitarian freedom; its anti-social, non-conducive to technical progress and more than anything else (including software patents, digital copyrights or monopolistic firms), will hamper the growth of free software. The GPL is hardly anything by which to guide the technology industries, or to cite as consistent with important political schools.

  • You ask me to look closely at what you wrote, but can't be bothered to do the same for me?

    I have never been so poorly paraphrased in my life. How on earth did you get:

    "Mark Blafkin concedes I’m right that the GPL respects the freedom of users to choose whether to use proprietary software alongside free software."

    from this???

    "There isn't anything in the GPLv2 or current drafts of version 3 that actively prevents free software distributors from shipping proprietary binaries alongside free software. Unfortunately, Tim is missing the forest for the trees.

    In the Mac, Windows, Unix and all non-free software operating systems, many proprietary video and audio card drivers are seemlessly integrated into the software. Free Software distributors are forced to ship them as separate binaries (if their moral compass even allows them to do so), which is a klugey solution at best. And why are they forced to do this? Because the GPL demands it. It prevents the integration of proprietary and open source code. If you are a believer in the Free Software cause, this is sacrifice you're willing to make, but for the rest of the world... well, we just want things to work.


    The GPL is designed to PREVENT users from choosing whether to use proprietary software alongside free software. The only way to integrate proprietary software with free software is to make the proprietary software FREE."

    The only thing I conceded is that there is a loophole (that Stallman hasn't found a way to close yet) in the GPL that allows distributors to ship proprietary binaries on the same CD as free software, but they can't be part of the same program/system. The GPL is designed to make it as difficult possible (and GPLv3 more so) to run both proprietary and free software at the same time. If you believe in the Free Software creedo, that is fine. It is an all or nothing ideology. The FSF and Stallman in particular have no interest in making it easy or giving you the freedom to run proprietary software alongside free software. If you thought proprietary software was evil, you wouldn't want it to integrate either.

    Finally, here is the biggest problem with your logical gymnastics on the OpenOffce issue. You state:

    Stallman objects to integrating free and proprietary software, because it runs the risk of undermining users’ freedoms. But he’s never objected to interoperability between free and proprietary software.

    What you're missing is that achieving interoperability with proprietary software OFTEN requires the USE of proprietary software. DVD player software is just one instance that requires the use of properietary code to achieve interop. It is the reason while you will NEVER see a Free Software version of a legal DVD player. And yes, he has objected to the creation of any Free Software that includes DRM technology...and interoperability is often a function of being able to use/read DRM. Even if you hate DRM, you must admit that it is a form of interoperability that Stallman is clearly against.

  • (Though I think the Amish comparison is a bit troubling--it invites analogies to situations where the conclusion is a lot trickier and might not hold at all, like the breakaway LDS sects of this place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_City,_Ari... )
  • I may just be restating what Crosbie said earlier, but assuming you oppose copyrights and patents for libertarian reasons--which plenty do--then it makes perfect sense to try to use the tools you have to keep your own contributions from bolstering the copyright/patent system. The rights GPL takes away from potential modifiers of code are rights that anti-IP libertarians, as well as anti-IP others, don't think *anyone* should have in the first place; hence there's nothing unlibertarian about using the system to ensure that you've done your part to maximize the amount of code that exists in a state more-or-less equivalent to what it would have in a world without IP.

    Those who say "you could just release it to the public domain" miss the point that releasing something into the public domain, *in a world with IP*, is very different from doing so in a world without--at least to the person that believes IP to be a deeply pernicious set of policies. The GPL means using evil laws to stop others from using the same evil laws for any purpose *except* mimicking the no-IP state.
  • So Tim, you do not claim Stallman is a libertarian, but you claim that libertarian principles are consistent with Stallman's views. In other words, you're saying that while Stallman may not sympathize with our views, we should sympathize with his.
  • Noel, what part of "I’ve never claimed that Stallman is a libertarian—he’s obviously not" do you not understand?
  • Painting Stallman as a libertarian is hardly flattering to any of the organizations associated with TLF.

    To support Stallman through applying some loose definition of libertarianism shows more ignorance of the tech industry than anything else.

    Innovators are concerned with developing new products, consumers are concerned with getting good products; those who argue that innovation should reflect political ideology are concerned with neither.

    Tim, do Stallman's four freedoms pass the pizzaright analogy:)
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: