Sad to see the same old retarded anti-FSF messaging, but at least I can point to Rob Myers’ nice little rebuttal, “Shooting the Messenger“.
First off, it’s amusing to watch the anti-FSF crowd accuse the FSF of negativity while simultaneously throwing around oh-so-positive messaging like calling people “Stallmanists” or saying the “FAF is a sham on English language”.
Secondly, the lead anti-FSF person is - surprise, surprise - Joe “Zonker” Brockmeier, who not only is consistently confused[1] about the FSF, he’s also amusingly fond of distorting FSF claims to try to make them appear like they support his position.
Mr. Brockmeier’s writings on the FSF reveal a misunderstanding so deep and profound of the FSF and its mission that I have a hard time accepting it is honest. It starts at the very first sentence, where Mr. Brockmeier falsely implies the FSF has no “positive way to push for software freedom” and continues to the very end, where Mr. Brockmeier idiotically implies that the FSF is not at the “center” of “folks concerned with protecting software freedom”.
Another example: Mr. Brockmeier’s ignorance (or maliciousness, take your pick) is revealed when he insinuates that RMS is “taking the FSF out of the game” by telling users not to use Saas, without mentioning that the FSF is in fact developing alteratives like GNU Social and LibrePlanet.
Antother example: even while admitting the FSF is correct in its assertion that the iPad is “bad for freedom”, Mr. Brockmeier complains “True, but where’s my alternative?” As if the FSF has failed because with its 12 employees and budget hasn’t delievered the alternative to a product released by one of the biggest tech companies on the planet.
Not to mention the false premise that one must have an iPad or similar device, or the false premise that if there isn’t an alternative it becomes wrong to point out a failing in the existing solution.
Idiotic in every sense of the word.
So you think the FSF is perfect?
Oh hell no.
I wish the FSF had a multi-million dollar budget and could hire Mad Men and produce slick campaigns with CGI penguins shitting out diamond rainbows over Seattle, but they just don’t have those kind of resources.
Consider for a moment the inverse. Look at how hard Apple and Adobe – two of the most closed platforms in existence – are messaging that they are “open”. Their PR campaigns are well-funded, well-executed and extremely effective … considering that they are in effect arguing that up is actually down.
Constrast that with the relatively clunky – but 10 million percent more honest – efforts of the FSF. The FSF campaigns are less effective because they are more honest – software freedom is a difficult (but worthy) topic to champion, and while it’s very easy to pretend to be Open, it is much harder to actually be Free.
[1] “Consistenly confused” is a kind way of saying “constantly pumping out maliciously misrepresenting messaging”
#1 by Lex on June 18, 2010 - 11:09 am
[...] hire Mad Men and produce slick campaigns with CGI penguins shitting out diamond rainbows over Seattle.
Nice one, lol.
(Not mentioning the rest, because I mostly agree).
#2 by Dan Serban on June 18, 2010 - 5:08 pm
The more I think about Apple and their effect on the PC and mobile industries, the more difficult it is for me to answer the question “Is closed vs. open the real issue in technology?”
See, Apple is first and foremost a hardware company, and they use software as a thin layer to enable that hardware. As such, they really should be compared to Acer or Asus. If you don’t want the closed software platform that comes preinstalled on Apple’s hardware, you can opt not to buy Apple’s hardware and that’s it. But if you don’t want the closed software platform that comes preinstalled on hardware made by Acer or Asus, what do you do? You go to Dell or HP or other OEMs only to find that there’s no escape, because Microsoft has made darn sure you won’t have a choice.
And that’s the real issue. Microsoft has taken the PC industry into a choiceless predicament where free software has to fight hard to survive. Compare that to the mobile industry, where WebKit is the de-facto standard, and Apple is pushing really hard to establish HTML5 as the modern way to experience the Web. This is an environment where free software can (and does) really thrive. It’s a multipolar world where Apple, Google, Adobe and Microsoft are all big enough players that they can keep each other in check, and Apple likes it that way, because to them, more competition means better opportunities to establish themselves as the premium brand. Compare that to Microsoft, whose business model hinges on having as little competition/choice as possible.
About the iPad and upcoming Android-based tablets: every device that ships without its CPU being controlled by a Redmond-made kernel is a small victory for open standards and, by consequence, for free software.
#3 by Jason on June 20, 2010 - 11:15 am
Dan,
Thanks for the comment!
I think there is indeed some “win” for Free Software in the success of Android and even to a lesser degree in iPad/iPhone. (In the latter case it’s more a side effect of two enemies hurting each other than a friend winning, but it helps Freedom nonetheless).
#4 by Yonah on July 6, 2010 - 1:02 am
You may disagree with Brockmeir, but I feel he put a lot more effort into actually explaining why his viewpoints and assertions are valid and worth listening to. You seem to only suggest he’s all wrong and just leave it at that. Well, that and a few subtle insults for good measure.
So, negative complains (i.e. Windows 7 Sins) are effective? How and why? Are negative complains always effective? Why are they not working for Westboro Baptist Church?
#5 by Jason on July 6, 2010 - 6:29 am
Yonah,
Thank you for your comments!
The main thing here is that Mr. Brockmeier’s entire premise is – to put it politely – misguided. His very first paragraph, encapsulating his thesis is false; a straw man set up to make his argument easy, rather than anything factual.
Here it is:
Now, consider the problems here:
The implication that the FSF is purely negative (it is not, nor has it ever been)
The implication that the FSF is not and has never thought of positive ways to push for software freedom
The FSF’s campaigns are “not working”. Proof? Evidence? Any metrics here?
And it just goes downhill from there. When dealing with an argument as flawed as this, it becomes tedious to go through each point. Because it is based on a false premise, the entire argument must be invalid — it becomes academic to analyze the entire thing.
Just to illustrate in long and excruciating detail, consider this:
News flash: companies don’t formulate philosophy. Companies don’t care about morals, ethics, or the betterment of society. The only thing they care about is maximizing shareholder value (to be polite about it).
So, the first problem with this line of thinking is that there is some relationship between philosophy and corporate behavior. The only relationship is that companies will “adopt” a philosophy if they think they can make a profit. Unless you think that profits==morals, what corporations do is largely irrelevant.
Secondly, Mr. Brockmeier makes a similar error (again with the politeness!) when he implies that “most users and contributors” are “companies that work in the community”, and therefore the majority of the community have rejected the “free software philosophy”.
The overall mistake here that Mr. Brockmeier makes is that he doesn’t seem to understand the FSF goals. He is insistant that corporate adoption of the Free Software ethos is the measurement of its success. This is untrue and ridiculous. The ethics of Free Software are a seperate domain from corporate adoption – any moral and ethical question is external from its profitability.
If society thinks X is unethical, the companies will stop doing it, because society will not reward unethical behavior. Stop and think about the things that companies used to do which were perfectly legal and profitable, and then stopped once society became enlightened on that issue. Truth in labeling. Child Labor. Racial discrimination. Environmental dumping. The list is long and ever-growing. Deriving right and wrong the other way around is ass backwards.
Furthermore, to judge the FSF in this ass backwards manner makes no sense, because it is not the yardstick that the FSF is using to measure its own success!
So what is the question?
The real questions are “Has the FSF constructed a valid system of ethics around Free Software?” and – to a lesser degree – “Can the FSF spread the acceptance of those ethics?”
If you want to argue that the concept or philosophy behind Free Software is flawed, I’m listening. If you want to argue that the GPL does not effectively support Free Software, I’m listening. If you want to argue that the FSF can better articulate it’s message, I’m listening. In fact, if you want to argue there is no ethical question at all around software, I’m listening. I have opinions on these issues, but I’m certainly open to exploring them.
But!If your argument comes down to judging the validity of Free Software by the yardstick of boardroom acceptance, I’m done listening. In what strange world do we derive our ethics from what makes money?
My you do go on so!
This same (or similar) problem runs through not only Mr. Brockmeier’s article, but also the vast majority of FSF criticism I see. That’s why I don’t spend to much time on every example. For one thing it’s usually the same-old-same-old, and for another thing I don’t have the energy — I feel like this has been a long-winded response and there are still easily a dozen other issues in just that once short article!
Even with my exceedingly brilliant writing, I dare not tax the Gentle Reader so every time someone regurgitates another article on how the FSF is doing it wrong.
#6 by Yonah on July 7, 2010 - 12:39 am
Brockmeier’s article doesn’t say that the FSF campaigns are purely negative. He’s making a complaint about the ones that he feels are a problem. Should he be more fair and balanced to the FSF by highlighting the things that are working? Perhaps, but this is not a news article, it’s just a blog.
I dislike the FSF and many in the FOSS movement in part because of the negative campaigns that use fear to motivate people into making the “morally correct” choices. I’m sure I’m not alone, therefore the premise that the FSF negative campaigns are not the best way to go may in fact be valid afterall. I feel that simply calling his article “invalid” is not a strong argument.
“If society thinks X is unethical, the companies will stop doing it, because society will not reward unethical behavior.”
It would be nice if the world worked this way, but it doesn’t. In fact, many of the things you site are still a problem today all over the world despite being considered unethical. Those things are unethical because a majority of people in society view them as real problems that are harmful to themselves and society. A lack of source code for a particular computer program is not something most people would see as any problem at all, let alone understand what source code actually is. Still, Brockmeier’s statements have little to do with what is or isn’t unethical behavior. He was simply stating that a majority of companies haven’t adopted the purist FOSS approach the FSF preaches. He believes the campaigns have not done the job. Here I actually disagree with Brockmeir. I believe most people and companies will not adopt a purist FSF philosophy because it is impractical.
“Has the FSF constructed a valid system of ethics around Free Software?”
In my option, no, because additional ethics outside of today’s current norms do not belong in computer software and are not important to society as a whole. Also because there is no reasonable provision for using proprietary software together with FOSS. The fact that many companies and people still use proprietary software even when they have FOSS available shows that FOSS hasn’t provided all that is needed. That isn’t ethics, it’s pure economics. The entire world’s economic system is based on the concept of people doing work and getting paid for that work. Creating software is work, no matter if it’s work done for free or for profit. To simply invalidate any software which doesn’t perfectly align itself with the views of the FSF just isn’t going to fly because creating software takes work. Simply put, you are free to give away the fruits of your labor at no cost, but no one else has any moral or ethical obligation to do so.
That’s why the FSF needs a major shift in it’s philosophy if it expects to gain widespread acceptance by not only die-hard believers but the society of computer users as a whole. A better campaign would highlight why having FOSS is important alongside proprietary software because it offers the consumer more choice. A do or die approach has little chance of success for the reasons highlighted above.
#7 by Jason on July 7, 2010 - 7:02 am
Yonah,
Thank you for your response!
It seems you continue to judge Free Software by the metric of corporate acceptance. You might as well base your opinion of the anti-smoking movement by the approval of Phillip Morris, but whatever.
As is my custom, here is one last response from myself on this matter – as the guest you are welcome to have the last word!
Of course most people don’t see the lack of source code as a problem. That is the entire point! If most people did see it as a problem, we’d not be having this discussion, would we?
Again, I think you are arguing from the wrong end around – the FSF is attempting to show people that the lack of source code, that the lack of user freedom is actually quite a problem indeed. If you start the other way around: “this is what most people think, so why are you arguing”, then nothing ever changes anywhere!
I am truly baffled by this line of argument – the only way I can get it to make sense is if you base everything from a “for profit” perspective. But I’ve already went into long detail why this makes absolutely no sense: companies are in the business of making money, and (to be kind) will do anything society will allow to make that money. They will not innovate ethics or morality, especially when it makes it more difficult to monetize a product!
It is flatly absurd to grade Free Software philosophy by its corporate acceptance. I don’t know how many more ways I can say it.
We have some agreement here, so let’s focus on that and hope some understand may come of it!
Free Software is a difficult proposition for many companies. It certainly changes the game up and makes it more difficult to monetize software. Companies don’t like difficulties on the path to making money, so they don’t like Free Software. That’s perfectly understandable.
Free Software is a very nice proposition for users. You get everything that closed source has, plus Freedom! What’s not to like? Don’t care about Freedom? You get it anyway, you don’t have to exercise it! You do care about Freedom? Great, we’ve got it!
The trick here is to convince users that Free Software is such a preferable choice that the resulting demand outweighs corporate opposition. This is already happening to a large degree (in the more palatable “Open” terminology) – and it’s not much of a trick because it happens to be true.
What’s true doesn’t always out, despite what the Grimm Brothers would have us to believe which is why I have repeatedly stated I am open to discussing how the FSF could be doing what it does, but better. Please note this is quite different from suggest that the FSF changes what it does altogether, meaning it just “gives up” and basically turns in the modern-day “Open Source” movement.
Yes, I agree. But, so what? This doesn’t mean the FSF is “wrong” or needs to change its message. It just means that Free Software is not where it needs to be yet. I think most people agree – there are some areas where Free Software is still behind.
Despite the tar and feathers I see so often, I’m not aware of anyone arguing that using non-Free Software when one must is some sort of terrible sin.
In fact, to return to the earlier point: one of the goals of the Free Software movement is to increase the demand for Free Software so that better Free Software solutions become more economically viable.
And, once again, you are arguing the wrong end around – if you take the stance that “Free Software isn’t here yet, so shut up about it”, then how exactly will Free Software ever get there?
This would basically do away with the Free Software Foundation, because it removes its entire reason for existence: to advocate for Free Software. “Offering the consumer more choice” is not an especially laudable goal, because it doesn’t necessarily lead to more Freedom. I understand why some people may think that Choice==Freedom, but that’s simply not so, and it’s not what the FSF advocates.
In Summary
Overall, your argument is like many I see and I don’t think it’s unfair to sum it up like so:
“If the FSF would just act in a way more acceptable to business, they would be more accepted by business”
I agree that is true and quite obvious.
And also quite ridiculous.