RMS, the free software community and cognitive dissonance
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
How does Richard Stallman and the free software community deal with the cognitive dissonance associated with the following behaviors?
Having a PayPal button in GNU, FSF and Trisquel.
Using a proprietary bootloader (before switching to libreboot.
Just curious.
I am a member!
I don't think anyone can speak on behalf of RMS or the FS community. I can only speak for myself. By recognizing that we live in an imperfect world, using ideals as a compass, and trying to carefully weigh the positive and negative consequences of my actions. I think we can strive to live according to our ideals, but we must be flexible enough to be able to survive long enough to cause a positive impact.
To quote Eduardo Galeano:
"What is the purpose of utopia? Utopia lies at the horizon. I know very well that I will never reach it. When I draw nearer by ten steps, it retreats by ten steps. The more I look for it the less I will find it, because it moves away as I move closer. What, then, is the purpose of utopia? Utopia is for that, for walking."
Having a PayPal button as a secondary option for supporting them doesn't require cognitive dissonance. They support ways of supporting them that don't require proprietary software use, too.
The proprietary bootloader doesn't require cognitive dissonance because using proprietary software makes you a victim, not a perpetrator. In any case, we make do with what we have. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (the good being reducing the amount of proprietary software on a fully proprietary system).
Then Debian and Ubuntu should be approved FSF distros because they offer the option to install only free software.
Stallman says he refuses to install proprietary software. When did he change his mind? Why was it OK to use a computer before libreboot appeared?
Is there any guidelines as to how and when to make those compromises?
RMS just tries to be an example of the most ideal possibility. As for Debian and Ubuntu, RMS did say that Debian was close to recommendable before Ututo was recognized as 100% libre, but there's no need for that now because GNU FSDG distros are better (in the FSF's opinion).
name at domain wrote:
> Stallman says he refuses to install proprietary software. When did he
> change his mind? Why was it OK to use a computer before libreboot appeared?
He probably never changed his mind about what was ethical (how should
people treat other people?) but circumstances he helped bring about
changed: prior to GNU, large mainframe computers were sold with an
operating system and that system's source code. When proprietary software
came along RMS saw the unethical nature of what he'd later call nonfree
software (visit https://audio-video.gnu.org/ for audio and videos of him
retelling the story of how he came to understand this as an ethical issue).
RMS worked for software freedom writing the early versions of free software
we still use today (GCC and GNU Emacs among them) and found software he
could press into service as part of GNU to fill gaps in needed
functionality (a strategy we still use today). The Linux kernel filled the
last major chunk needed for a completely free OS. So when that kernel was
available under a free license, it became suitable for the task of making a
fully-free system.
So with that background, and to answer your first question: I can only
guess that it was after RMS had seen the ill effects of being denied that
printer software to fully control the then-new laser printer at MIT's AI
lab. Nonfree software was becoming the status quo and he fought to restore
the freedoms he had enjoyed before. We in the free software movement
recognize those freedoms as the key way to ethically treat others with
regard to computer software, and a practical principle on which to base
decisions regarding a lot of computer-related choices today.
It was okay to use a nonfree system to write free software because nonfree
OSes were all anyone had. Sometimes in order to create a better world, one
has to use the tools to hand. In computers that meant using a nonfree
system to make more free software. The Unix model of piecemeal replacement
provided a practical structure to identify and replace parts of the system
while retaining compatibility with what was (and still is) a very useful
overall system.
Today we don't need nonfree computers to do practical jobs. So the only
need to run nonfree software is to reverse engineer a nonfree program or
provide guidance about functionality and compatibility (for instance,
running a program through the nonfree SPSS to make sure the free PSPP
program runs that same program and provides the same output). This helps
people migrate from nonfreedom to freedom.
I suspect the same is the case with Libreboot (a Coreboot distribution
featuring only free software). Coreboot was the best anyone could do, but
now Libreboot does this job better.
> Is there any guidelines as to how and when to make those compromises?
I think keeping in mind software freedom as a goal is key; running nonfree
software is not to be seen as a convenient excuse, and it's not social
permission to recommend nonfree software except for the purpose of
providing a free replacement. Also, keep in mind that the focus is on doing
practical jobs we need computers to do. This typically includes
spreadsheets, word processors, and web browsing, but not typically video
games. It's not that running nonfree games is acceptable, it's that games
don't typically require the degree of compatibility other software
requires. There are some unusual cases involving emulating games for which
only a binary blob is available (many of the games MAME emulates, for
instance) where some more reflection and discussion is needed to identify
what we need and how we should ethically go about reaching those needs.
I hope that helps.
It's not that running nonfree games is acceptable, it's that games don't typically require the degree of compatibility other software requires.
What do you mean? Free software is not about compatibility. The FSF or RMS would certainly argue that the software part (not the graphics, the sounds, the story, etc.) of a video game must be free software to be ethical. A specific point is that malware can be (and often is, e.g., DRM) implemented in the proprietary software of an unethical video game.
I wrote considerably more but a non-representative excerpt quoted read:
> It's not that running nonfree games is acceptable, it's that games don't
> typically require the degree of compatibility other software requires.
to which name at domain replied:
> What do you mean? Free software is not about compatibility. The FSF or
> RMS would certainly argue that the software part (not the graphics, the
> sounds, the story, etc.) of a video game must be free software to be
> ethical. A specific point is that malware can be (and often is, e.g.,
> DRM) implemented in video games.
Contrary to your response, I did explain that I understand the free
software takes an ethical stance and said as much in text you didn't reproduce.
Sometimes there is no source code to license, share, or edit. Sometimes the
source is lost or the source code is the distributed machine code. This
means one faces a different consideration than one faces for modern
programs where source code is available and different than what's
distributed. Older games come up with difficulties like this.
Regarding game art: It's not always clear how to replace art not licensed
to share even verbatim. In some older games the art in the game is not
separate from the rest of the game code.
There are also some practical problems regarding what we need to get out of
emulating old systems to run older software. For now, sharing copies of
machine code dumped from old storage media and writing emulators to read
and run that code seems to suffice. Unfortunately we do this without the
copyright holder's permission. Modern copyright law is useful when we write
code from scratch and license it to others under a free license, or write
new free software based on other free software. But modern copyright law
doesn't grant us what we need to preserve our computing heritage in the
most useful way.
I have not understood a specific part of your post: what you meant by "games don't typically require the degree of compatibility other software requires". That is why I quoted that small excerpt and asked "What do you mean?"... and, despite your answer, I still do not understand.
If a program was written in an assembly language, then that is the source code. If processed (for instance if comments were removed), it is not the source code anymore. The free software definition applies. Unchanged. In particular, if the source code was lost, then the program is not free software. That it runs on an emulator makes no difference when it comes to declaring it free or proprietary. "Preserving our computing heritage" is a separate issue (although having a freely shareable source code certainly helps). And all those difficulties look common to any very old program, not only games but also old spreadsheets and word processors that you put in another category, the extended excerpt being:
This typically includes spreadsheets, word processors, and web browsing, but not typically video games. It's not that running nonfree games is acceptable, it's that games don't typically require the degree of compatibility other software requires.
I do not want to offend you. I only want to understand you.
name at domain wrote:
> I have not understood a specific part of your post: what you meant by
> "games don't typically require the degree of compatibility other software
> requires". That is why I quoted that small excerpt and asked "What do you
> mean?"... and, despite your answer, I still do not understand.
I thought that was clear in the original context. I'll explain again:
Nobody loads a file into a game in the way they commonly load files into
spreadsheets, word processors, and other similar programs for which work is
typically done.
There are also other issues which I think I've explained clearly that are
more likely to affect older software.
> Nobody loads a file into a game in the way they commonly load files into
> spreadsheets, word processors, and other similar programs for which work is
> typically done.
Games do load files, but I suppose you mean that you never transfer files for use with non-identical software, and therefore compatibility of the files they read and/or write with other similar programs is not an issue. I'd just like to point out that all of these kinds of programs are typically the same way:
- Calculator applications
- Clock/alarm applications
- File managers
- Terminal emulators
- Device firmware
- Device drivers
I don't think compatibility, in any sense, is a particularly helpful criterion to look at when determining how good or bad a program being proprietary is.
On 05/01/18 16:52, wrote:
> Then Debian and Ubuntu should be approved FSF distros because they
> offer the option to install only free software.
>
> Stallman says he refuses to install proprietary software. When did he
> change his mind? Why was it OK to use a computer before libreboot
> appeared?
>
> Is there any guidelines as to how and when to make those compromises?
You fail to understand that Free Software and Free Hardware aren't
just technological options, they are about Ethics. Once you learn the
Ethics of it, the rest is self-evident.
--
Ignacio Agulló · name at domain
> Having a PayPal button in GNU, FSF and Trisquel.
There are some people who may have recently discovered the free software movement, agree with its goals, and want to donate, but have not completed the difficult process of reducing the power of proprietary software over their lives and migrating to as much free software as possible. Excluding them would not help the free software movement. Similarly, you can access the GNU and FSF websites from proprietary browsers. The FSF surely does not approve of proprietary browsers, but if they were to block users of such browsers from their websiste they would be preventing them from learning about the issues withand replacements for their browser.
> Using a proprietary bootloader (before switching to libreboot.
Before libreboot existed nobody could use it. Refusing to use a computer entirely would not have furthered the goals of the free software movement, so the FSF would had to use non-free bootloaders in the meantime. Fortunately this is no longer the case. Similarly, before there was a 100% libre distro, nobody could use one. If this were still true, the FSF would probably endorse Debian, but since it is no longer true there is no need to settle.
I understand where you're coming from with this, but I think you are confused on a couple of points that confuse many people. The first is that the FSF condemns the creation and distribution of proprietary software, not its use. Blaming users is blaming the victims. You should avoid proprietary software as much as possible for the sake of your own freedom, but you are not a bad person for using it. It is hard to rid yourself of proprietary software. That is not your fault, and the FSF doesn't think it is. Maybe they need to say this more often, because I often see people get defensive about sometimes using proprietary software when they have no reason to be.
The second point is the misconception that because the FSF has ideals, it cannot be pragmatic. The false dichotomy of pragmatism and idealism is a trap to make people think ideals are unimportant and vote for war criminals. Just because some bad people use a pretense of "pragmatism" as an excuse to not to the right thing doesn't mean that pragmatism is inherently bad.
Thank you, that was a very good answer.
In the following fsf article it is explained that bios used not to be such a big problem since it was stored in ROM:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html
I understand this by comparing it to software on some electronics like a CD player or a microwave. Sure, know days with the "Internet of things" even ROM software can be dangerous, but with enough time you would at least be able to figure out what it does and what it doesn't. This wouldn't be possible if instead of being permanent (ROM) those software could be updated (maybe even remotely) which is the case with "modern" bios. Plus, even if the old ROM bios were free software, you wouldn't be able to do anything with them since you couldn't change the bios anyway.
I think I'll be surprise if I tried to figure out how many every day electronics and devices run "software". My coffee maker maybe? But you don't see me worry about finding out it's code and license. Maybe I should? xD
Anyway, the fsf figure about the issue, and people started working on solving the problem, which is what is truly important. Instead of sitting down and do nothing, they started talking about the issue and support projects like libreboot until they became a reality. Being paralyze wouldn't have solved anything.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios