From geert@desk.nl Sun Nov 10 15:12:16 2002
'Free' Software doesn't mean the same as zero-cost software. It means that, unlike proprietory software, it gives freedom to its users as outlined in the GNU General Public License.
That's a bit of a myth, Frederic. Free software potentially only gives freedom to those users who are capable of programming, who know how to write code and want to change the source code of a program. For non-technical users this freedom is a nice idea but meaningless. With the rise in users, coders are a diminishing group of people. Normal users may expect other 'freedoms' or values. I think it is time for the programmers community to take this in account and stop the Stallman talk of freedom, free lunch and free beer once and for all. These metaphors are not only confusing but also running out in a time when free software really becomes popular and transcends its original scene where every user by default was a programmer. It is time to take the non-technical user into account. That's the 'cultural turn' the free software movement is heading towards.
Ciao, Geert
--------------END OF GEERT's NOTE-----------------------------------
Geert, There was another point that I was thinking of, in parallel. Free Software talks about four freedoms. Freedom 0, 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps it would make sense to include a fifth freedom:
Freedom of users to get access to computing power at a price that does not exclude them simply because they don't have the resources to pay.
Tell me if this is being unrealistic....
Of course we're not still misconstruing the word 'free' to mean zero-price here. But the fact that GPL'd software is copyable without unfair restrictions on sharing it with your neighbour, surely means that it mostly cannot/will not be priced at astronomical prices, as in the case of proprietorial or non-free software. This may not seem important from a programers point of view. But from a user's point of view, it is. More so in the price-sensitive countries which we live in.
As a user myself (who hasn't done a line of code in my life), this issue is something that has been gaining my attention subconsciously and otherwise. It is great that the idealism of the Free Software programmers eggs them on to write world-class software, often (or in many cases) without thinking of financial returns alone. That they share the fruit of their work with others is also great. So is the fact that this helps spread the process for creation and sharing of knowledge. But where does the user fit into this whole project?
On another issue, I think that the ideals of Free Software need to be extended to other fields too (including journalism, where the money has become good in recent years in countries like India but increasingly journalists are feeling choked by their inability to express themselves freely).
Maybe there is still confusion in understanding the issues involved. But this debate could help.
Copying this to others for a wider debate. Flames welcome. FN -- Frederick Noronha * Freelance Journalist * Goa * India 832.409490 / 409783 BYTESFORALL www.bytesforall.org * GNU-LINUX http://linuxinindia.pitas.com Email fred@bytesforall.org * Mobile +9822 122436 (Goa) * Saligao Goa India Writing with a difference... on what makes *the* difference
"Fred" == Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org writes:
>> From geert@desk.nl Sun Nov 10 15:12:16 2002 'Free' Software >> doesn't mean the same as zero-cost software. It means that, >> unlike proprietory software, it gives freedom to its users as >> outlined in the GNU General Public License.
Fred> That's a bit of a myth, Frederic. Free software potentially Fred> only gives freedom to those users who are capable of Fred> programming, who know how to write code and want to change Fred> the source code of a program. For non-technical users this Fred> freedom is a nice idea but meaningless. With the rise in Fred> users, coders are a diminishing group of people. Normal Fred> users may expect other 'freedoms' or values. I think it is Fred> time for the programmers community to take this in account Fred> and stop the Stallman talk of freedom, free lunch and free Fred> beer once and for all. These metaphors are not only Fred> confusing but also running out in a time when free software Fred> really becomes popular and transcends its original scene Fred> where every user by default was a programmer. It is time to Fred> take the non-technical user into account. That's the Fred> 'cultural turn' the free software movement is heading Fred> towards.
I don't agree that the freedom aspect of free software is less relevant today than it was, say, 20 years ago.
The freedom aspect of free software has many implications to the end user. These include:
- The ability to change the code. Yes, most users can't program `hello, world'. However they can always hire, blackmail, coerce or beg a coder to change the code for them. That coder need not have anything to with the original author of the software. That is a freedom.
- The freedom from dependence on one entity for the package. Whom do you turn to for security patches? Who provides updates to your package? Who adds the features that you need? The original developer? Do you trust the developer to provide all these in a timely fashion? Do you trust his/her ability to make secure software? Do you trust him to stay alive for the whole period you use the software? If MS dies tomorrow who will maintain, update and provide security fixes for Winduhs?
- The freedom to examine the code or have it examined by a III party for security weak spots and/or backdoors.
I'm sure there're many I've missed, but these should do for a start.
Regards,
-- Raju
Fred> Ciao, Geert
Fred> --------------END OF GEERT's Fred> NOTE-----------------------------------
Fred> Geert, There was another point that I was thinking of, in Fred> parallel. Free Software talks about four freedoms. Freedom Fred> 0, 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps it would make sense to include a Fred> fifth freedom:
Fred> Freedom of users to get access to computing power at a Fred> price that does not exclude them simply because they don't Fred> have the resources to pay.
Fred> Tell me if this is being unrealistic....
Fred> Of course we're not still misconstruing the word 'free' to Fred> mean zero-price here. But the fact that GPL'd software is Fred> copyable without unfair restrictions on sharing it with your Fred> neighbour, surely means that it mostly cannot/will not be Fred> priced at astronomical prices, as in the case of Fred> proprietorial or non-free software. This may not seem Fred> important from a programers point of view. But from a user's Fred> point of view, it is. More so in the price-sensitive Fred> countries which we live in.
Fred> As a user myself (who hasn't done a line of code in my Fred> life), this issue is something that has been gaining my Fred> attention subconsciously and otherwise. It is great that the Fred> idealism of the Free Software programmers eggs them on to Fred> write world-class software, often (or in many cases) without Fred> thinking of financial returns alone. That they share the Fred> fruit of their work with others is also great. So is the Fred> fact that this helps spread the process for creation and Fred> sharing of knowledge. But where does the user fit into this Fred> whole project?
Fred> On another issue, I think that the ideals of Free Software Fred> need to be extended to other fields too (including Fred> journalism, where the money has become good in recent years Fred> in countries like India but increasingly journalists are Fred> feeling choked by their inability to express themselves Fred> freely).
Fred> Maybe there is still confusion in understanding the issues Fred> involved. But this debate could help.
Fred> Copying this to others for a wider debate. Flames Fred> welcome. FN -- Frederick Noronha * Freelance Journalist *
- The ability to change the code. Yes, most users can't program
`hello, world'. However they can always hire, blackmail, coerce or beg a coder to change the code for them. That coder need not have
Excuse me, but what do you mean by "most users"? Is it our friendly neighbourhood Uncle and Aunty with their 10yr old kid who bought their computer mainly for playing games and watching DVDs? Or the local DTP wallah who is most happy with his pirated copy of M$,Adobee whatever?
Alex.
"Alex" == Alex A J <Alex> writes:
>> - The ability to change the code. Yes, most users can't >> program `hello, world'. However they can always hire, >> blackmail, coerce or beg a coder to change the code for them. >> That coder need not have
Alex> Excuse me, but what do you mean by "most users"? Is it our Alex> friendly neighbourhood Uncle and Aunty with their 10yr old Alex> kid who bought their computer mainly for playing games and Alex> watching DVDs? Or the local DTP wallah who is most happy Alex> with his pirated copy of M$,Adobee whatever?
Yup. If Uncle, Auntie and DTP-wallah are using Linux and one of them has a problem with it, they can send a message to the local LUG mailing list or call their other friend who helped them install it in the first place and expect to get help, maybe even a personalised visit from one of the happy hackers living near them.
Regards,
-- Raju
==>Raju Mathur wrote:
Yup. If Uncle, Auntie and DTP-wallah are using Linux
A very big IF indeed. Most of the computers used by these people are assembled ones and they come preloaded with the latest M$ bloatware and all sorts of bleeding-edge thingies from major software companies (`pirated' of course).
How can our Uncle and Auntie install and play the latest version of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" on their linux machine? (All their neighbors are running it on their winxxx machines and the 10yr old kid is screaming hell)
And the DTP-wallah will have to close shop if he were to abandon windoze and install Linux. Is there an alternative to Adobe Pagemaker (used by 99.9% of DTP guys) in Linux? And the Indian language s/w from most of the major players like CDAC are heavily windoze biased (and non-free).
What does freedom mean, to these people?
has a problem with it, they can send a message to the local LUG mailing list or call their other friend who helped them install it in the first place and expect to get help, maybe even a personalised visit from one of the happy hackers living near them.
Ohh well, I happen to be a `happy hacker' with a whole lotta uncles and aunties nearby. And I have the pleasure of enjoying many personalised visits to them. The above questions were actually asked by some of them, while discussing this new-fangled thing called `Lainuksh', which everybody is talking about these days.
Cheers Alex.
"Alex" == Alex A J <Alex> writes:
Alex> ==>Raju Mathur wrote: >> Yup. If Uncle, Auntie and DTP-wallah are using Linux
Alex> A very big IF indeed. Most of the computers used by these Alex> people are assembled ones and they come preloaded with the Alex> latest M$ bloatware and all sorts of bleeding-edge thingies Alex> from major software companies (`pirated' of course).
I think you're missing the point, Alex. The original message from Geert and Frederick's response were to do with the question of ability to modify free software, not with the pervasiveness of the same. Geert's thesis was that the ability to modify free software is useless in most cases since the users don't have the skills required to modify it in the first place. You've already seen my response, even if out of context :-)
Regards,
-- Raju
Alex> [snip]
"Alex A.J." wrote:
==>Raju Mathur wrote:
Yup. If Uncle, Auntie and DTP-wallah are using Linux
I have seen the DTP wallahs in Calicut closing shop for weeks together fearing raids. Free Software means a lot for them it it can do their job. Game playing Uncles and Aunties can be safely ignored, at least for the time being.
ajith
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:58:59 +0530, "Alex A.J." alexaj@vsnl.com wrote:
- The ability to change the code. Yes, most users can't program
`hello, world'. However they can always hire, blackmail, coerce or beg a coder to change the code for them. That coder need not have
Excuse me, but what do you mean by "most users"? Is it our friendly neighbourhood Uncle and Aunty with their 10yr old kid who bought their computer mainly for playing games and watching DVDs?
No, that's not what "most users" necessarily means. "Users" include businesses and organisations big and small, educational institutions etc. All of these value the freedom to modify the software or get it modified for them. And for those who don't need or care for this freedom, free software gives them the freedom to share so that your uncle and aunty can give you a copy of the software without feeling guilty about doing something "illegal" and their 10-year-old kid can be taught that sharing is a wonderful thing and not something forbidden by law.
Regards, Khuzaima
That's a bit of a myth, Frederic. Free software potentially only gives freedom to those users who are capable of programming, who know how to write code and want to change the source code of a program.
Non-programmers can and do use this freedom. Businesses use it by hiring someone else to make the changes; this is not unusual. Individuals can use it by persuading a programmer friend to make the changes. As more people learn programming, it will become easier to do this.
In addition, many of the changes that you want will be wanted by others as well, and someone will make the change. Then you will have benefited because everyone has this freedom even though you did not exercise it yourself.
These metaphors are not only confusing but also running out in a time when free software really becomes popular and transcends its original scene where every user by default was a programmer.
That is attacking a straw man. We never assumed that every user was a programmer.
It is time to take the non-technical user into account.
Oh no! The time to do this was in 1990, which is when the GNU Project first started developing a GUI desktop.
-
Ajith Kumar -
Alex A.J. -
Frederick Noronha -
klak＠giasbm01.vsnl.net.in -
Raju Mathur -
Richard Stallman