In that first run-up we basically had a couple of the usual chuckleheads waging war against a flimsly constructed straw man in hopes of discrediting RMS/FSF/Free Software with a secondary effect of promoting “Open Source” as the preferred term (and a tertiary effect of embarassing themselves). The usual tactics from the usual suspects.

Today, I saw that Bradley M. Kuhn is now a member of the GNOME Foundation. GNOME is in desperate need of people who understand and respect the Free Software ethos, so this is welcome news indeed.

Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’

That news also spurred me to peek in on the GNOME Foundation mailing list again, where I was disappointed (but not surprised) to see the same chuckleheads still engaged in the same tactics. At least in this current iteration the straw men and push polls are a bit more restrained.

Perhaps some of this restraint is because some of the mailing list members are taking the chuckleheads to task? It becomes difficult to maintain shenanigans when people point them out. The encouraging thing is that I think if you take the time to read the list, you’ll see that for a large part trolls are being recognized and called out for what they are. (Try this thread as a good example.) Welcome news, indeed.

Ignant

One special peanut in that turd of thread caught my attention:

Free software isn’t a synonym for open source, and by only using ‘free software’ you aren’t including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also endorses.

Ah yes, one of my favorites topics: “Open Source” was originally intended to be synonym for “Free Software”. Of course, we know how that turned out – and how right RMS was to reject the “Open Source” re-labeling.

“Open Source” is increasingly not being used in its original intent to avoid making “corporate types nervous”, but is being wielded as some sort of weird anti-”Free Software” weapon.

It’s especially rich in the context of GNOME, because GNOME was orginally purposed as being “based entirely on free software”, and was quite proud to be associated with GNU:

As most GNU software, GNOME application code will be released under the GNU GPL. GNOME specific libraries will be released under the terms of the GNU LGPL.

(You’ve come a long way, baby.)

Why are you even here?

I sometimes wonder why people who are not pro-Free Software, not pro-GNU,  not pro-(L)GPL would try to be all involved in a GNU Free Software Project conceived under the auspicies of the (L)GPL?

Promoting Microsoft? Who? Us?

Remember that whole promoting proprietary software on Planet GNOME kerfluffle?

I know this will sound insane, but I think a huge-ass button saying “Install Microsoft® Silverlight™” might possibly fall under the “promotion of proprietary software” heading?

Here is where you go if you click the button:

Is this Where You Want To Go?

Note that you are directed to press the “Click to Install” button, which does not exist. Oh, Novell – truly it is all worth it for the wonders you have wrought. You are indeed bringing Linux users around the world the Real© Microsoft®™ Experience. I had nearly forgotten the endlessly retarded bullshit one had to deal with just by turning on the computer when running Microsoft Windows – and 800X that hassle when running Internet Explorer – but Novell is bringing it all to Linux! Huzzah!

And, so what if it causes a minor stir in the community – who cares what it took to get where we are today anyway? This is truly important stuff! Damn the principles, full speed ahead to Redmond!

Misrepresentin’

It’s always sadly amusing to me that people insist on (maliciously?) twisting and misrepresenting RMS. They try it in comments here (and all around) the intertubes, and even on the very mailing list in which he participates:

Richard, as a GNOME member, suggested that we forbid any mention of proprietary software on planet GNOME.

[rms]
Nobody suggested that as far as I know.  I certainly did not.

This is just another vivid example of the “RMS doesn’t even want people acknowledging proprietary software” lie that some people are trying to push. (Someone tries it here on this blog.)

Another example:

As a specific example, to the question, “Do you agree that viewing
    proprietary software as ‘illegitimate’, ‘immoral’, ‘antisocial’ and/or
    ‘unethical’ should be a pre-condition for syndication on Planet GNOME?”, so
    far 151 respondents have answered “No”, only 19 have answered “Yes”. That’s
    about an 8-to-1 ratio.

[rms]

That goes far beyond what I said, and I would not propose it.  It
seems that a significant minority have views on this issue much
stronger than mine.

What worries me is that you presented this question inaccurately here
as pertaining to my views.  The readers here have seen what I said and
can see the difference.  But if you said the same thing elsewhere,
that would constitute misrepresenting my views to the public.

And just one more:

Non-free software can’t even be “favorably mentioned”?

[rms]

My second suggestion was to post an official GNOME response when it is
favorably mentioned.  My previous suggestion was for a rule
about a much narrower case.

It seems you’ve grafted part of one onto part of the other, and now
you’re criticizing a combination which nobody proposed.

Listen people, you don’t have to agree with RMS. He’s not a god or infallible. Just stop lying about the man and what he says. Just stop lying.

If it only happened once or twice, I would be generous and assume it wasn’t malicious. But it is constant, and seems to come too easy to be an honest misunderstanding. I’m tired of trying to determine if a person is misrepresenting RMS because they are a malicious liar, or merely an uninformed moron parroting a malicious liar. It is quickly become a distinction without a difference.

One more thing before I move on: straw man. We see you doing it. You aren’t fooling anyone. It’s disgusting, dishonest, childish and malicious. Stop it. Stop lying.

Don’t try to hide it

There is a brief (and likely to fail) proposal to move such discussion into private channels. I think it’s clear why this is a bad idea: people are already straight up lying about what is being said in the very same thread where it is said, just imagine the lies and distortions that would come out of “private” discussions!

At least with the discussion publicly archived those that take the time can read through and see the lying lies that malicious liars are lying. Shine a light on them and watch the cockroaches scurry away, I say.

This is why I always try to read original sources and always try to link to them. It’s also why I chuckle when people try to pretend like I’m making something up. It’s right there in 0s and 1s, friend. You can disagree with my analysis, but the facts are the facts.

I like “seeing the sausage made”. You can read through the mailing list and see exactly who is a troll with ulterior motives and who is actually addressing the issue. Can’t tell the players without a scorecard.

I do sympathize that such discussion can be embarassing. Guess what? Some people need to be embarassed. Those people in that thread that are straight-up lying and misrepresenting RMS? They need to be embarassed.

A large part of the problem is that they aren’t embarassed: not embarassed to lie, not embarassed to misrepresent; and not embarassed to construct straw men and push polls. They should be embarassed, and the GNOME foundation should be embarassed by having them as participants.

[Slashdot Article] | [IT Wire Article]

The best reading to be done though, is on ground zero, the GNOME Foundation Mailing List. There are two purposes to do so:

1. Get the story
2. Watch the players

The Story

Basically, Planet GNOME aggregates a bunch of blogs to provide a “window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors.”

The issue of contention is the opacity of that window: always clear for any message? Or, tinted a bit to keep out inappropriate posts? (Raising the question of what, if anything, is “inappropriate”.)

Apparently, this is such an issue that some people feel GNOME should consider making itself not-an-offical-GNU-Project project.

I don’t think it’s hard to see that there is a much deeper issue here and the content of Planet GNOME is just another manifestation of the ever-growing divide between the “Free Software” and “Open Source” camps.

The Players

Do you remember the last controversy around Richard Stallman and Mono? Well, surprise surprise: the players are same! Imagine that! Quite the coincidence.

It just so happens that the person calling for the vote is the same person that created the whole “I am not afraid of people writing code” slur-meme.

It just so happens that the person seconding the call for the vote is the same person that crafted “open letters”, published private correspondance and called for Stallman to be banned from speaking at future conferences.

(The irony of calling for someone to be banned from speaking while later pretending outrage at that same person for calling into question how appropriate some topics are is quite delicious.)

Again, read the posts to the mailing list and on the blogs. Stallman is calm and composed while being called a “fascistic extremist“, and subjected to push polling. His critics as usual are condescending, twist his words, and resort to childish rhetoric at every opportunity.

The beauty of the mailing list is that it is all laid out there for anyone to see.

One Quick Talking Point Demolished

The argument goes something like this: the charter of Planet GNOME is to give a “window into the world, work and lives of GNOME hackers and contributors“, so by extension anything such a person posts to the Planet is acceptable.

This is obviously silly. No one would stand for a poster that continuously posted racist material or pornography, so there must be some sort of limit. Is an occasional post on proprietary software at that limit? Are frequent posts? Are positively drooling posts at that limit?

How about posts from someone that has virtually nothing to do with the GNOME project anymore? How long should they be kept in aggregation?

How about the fact that you could discuss any of these questions without the first response being, “Well, we will just disassociate GNOME from the FSF!”? That over-reaction and false dilemma is just the sort of thing that reveals the issue is deeper than face value.

Was that you?

Personally, I don’t really mind what people are talking about on Planet GNOME. Yeah, it stinks up the room when Team Mono or other “Open Source advocates” squeak out pro-Proprietary Software message after message and it’s picked up by Planet GNOME (among other aggregators), but the fact of the matter is it is unavoidable.

SThey are going to walk that line and stay on the very edge of “pro-Open Source” while both talking up Closed Source and taking shots at Free Software. That’s the road they have chosen, and it’s going to come up when whatever they are promoting comes in conflict with Freedom.

Let it come, then, I say. But that’s just me.

Presenting the Pirate Party Position

Here are the relevant bits:

The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today’s copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. No film studio or record company bases its investment decisions on the off-chance that the product would be of interest to anyone a hundred years in the future. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today’s world. If you haven’t made your money back in the first one or two years, you never will. A five years copyright term for commercial use is more than enough. Non-commercial use should be free from day one.

We also want a complete ban on DRM technologies, and on contract clauses that aim to restrict the consumers’ legal rights in this area. There is no point in restoring balance and reason to the legislation, if at the same time we continue to allow the big media companies to both write and enforce their own arbitrary laws.

Sounds pretty good on an initial read, no?
The idea that copyright should be limited in length to some amount is nothing novel, though reasonable people can differ on the exact length. “Reasonable people” does not mean media conglomerates. There is a difference between considering 5 or 14 years, and 14 or 120 years. The former is a matter for honest debate, the latter a dark mockery of the very concept of copyright.

Stallman Sees Something Surprising

Because the current concept of Free Software relies on using copyright against itself, anything that affects copyright necessarily affects Free Software.
Stallman, naturally, sees this immediately and raises some problems.

There can be non-copyright restrictions

Patents, EULAs, NDAs, and other such extra-copyright measures can restrict software just as copyright can. It will do little good to restore sanity to copyright, if proprietary vendors simply turn to other measures to restrict user freedom.

Some proprietary developers entertain EULA clauses most vile (and of legal questionability), restricting how you may use or even what you can say about the software. These extra-copyright restrictions must be removed as well.

“Freed” proprietary software is not Free Software

The major strength of Free Software is the availability of source code, necessary to study, change and improve the software. Availability of source code also prevents proprietary vendors from simply installing a “killswitch” in the software that renders it non-functional the day after copyright expires.

If the law were such that “killswitches” were recognized as a form of DRM – which the Pirate Party calls for a complete ban upon, this risk may be mitigated.

Consider how coming out of copyright might affect a film or piece of music: once the work is in the public domain, anyone may re-use or modify any portion of it. But, compare that to proprietary software in the public domain with no source code: the user can not re-use or modify any portion of it. Because of the nature of software, it is the freedom of source code that is important, not the freedom of the object code.

Now consider that Free Software would lose all protection on its source code after 5 years, after which proprietary vendors could appropriate the work, but without having to release their own source code! The effect would not be equal between Free Software and closed software.  Proprietary vendors would benefit greatly from all the Free Software moved into the public domain, without making an equal contribution to society by releasing any source code at all!

Resolutions Reviewed

There are two proposed methods to deal with these issues; one from Stallman, and one from within the Pirate Party.

Stallman’s suggestion is to hold proprietary software source code in escrow, and then release it into the public domain after 5 years. In this case, it is true that Free Software would lose its protections after the 5 year period, but so would proprietary software, so this seems fair.

The issue I see here is proprietary vendors playing games about what constitutes the “source code” of a given program. All included libraries? Must the code be un-obfuscated? We can be sure that some proprietary vendors will not go gently into that dark night.

The suggestion from within the Pirate Party is that copyright length is extended as freedoms are extended to the user. The more free a work, the longer a period of copyright it enjoys. This offers the advantages of being non-material specific – it would apply to anything, not just software – and it adds a real market value on Freedom.

The issue I see here is the need to codify how Free a work is, which is not an easy process. The GPL is constantly under attack from commercial entities that want all the rewards of Free Software with none of the responsibilities; directly tying copyright to Freedom would only increase that problem.

The Issue to be solved

The real issue here is that if you use your enemy’s strength against him, what happens when you take that strength away? Because Free Software’s legal basis is firmly rooted in the strength of copyright, if copyright is weakened, then so is Free Software.

Of the two proposed solutions, I lean towards the idea of tying length of copyright with Freedom to Users. I like that it doesn’t not carve out an exception for Free Software – because I think the ideals behind Free Software need not be limited to software. I also like the idea of codifying into law how Free something is – though I fully realize what a political issue that would be and how hard proprietary companies would work to subvert it.

A third path would be to find or create some way to enforce the Four Freedoms without relying on copyright law to do so. Is there a different area of law that could be used? I am unaware of any non-copyright-based Free Software ideas. If there were no copyright, could the Four Freedoms be enforced?

Of course, it is unlikely that copyright will be reduced to 50 years – much less 5 years – so the point is largely academic.
That being said, I find it interesting to consider ways Free Software might be enforced without copyright.