[pp.int.general] Significance of use of Free and proprietary software in a political context

[Matthias Weiler]

Per von Zweigbergk wrote:
> 26 jan 2009 kl. 05.22 skrev Richard M Stallman:
> 
>>    Could be, however Obama is a pragmatist - the election campaign used
>>    Linux and free software
>>
>> They couldn't use Linux by itself, since that's just a kernel and
>> would not run by itself in a PC.  Surely what you mean is the
>> GNU/Linux operating system.
> 
> 
> In this specific case, the usage of the term Linux was not incorrect, 
> because the addition of "and free software" recognized the presence of 
> free software from other sources than the operating system kernel.

It was incorrect simply because the Linux kernel is free software. 
"Linux and free Software" would mean that Linux is special in any way 
but it's just code released under the GNU GPL the same way thousands of 
other free software projects do this.

> By the way, not all unix-like operating systems using Linux as the 
> kernel are necessarily GNU. I have seen a lot of embedded systems which 
> are based around Linux and busybox. (In embedded systems, this is much 
> more common than running GNU/Linux.) It is not at all impossible that 
> somebody might make an internet server platform using Linux but not 
> using GNU.

It is for sure possible but that's not the point. Without the work of 
Stallman, the FSF and the GNU Project Linux would for sure not be what 
it is today. Linus and his guys and even the busybox community use GCC, 
GPL and last but not least they "use" the free software movement and 
their supporters as such. That means that Linux, busybox and every other 
GPL'ed software can't exist without the philosophical backgroud provided 
by Richard, FSF and GNU.

> 
> I'm not saying that's what the Obama campaign used (rather unlikely in 
> fact), but I would just like to point out that there are other ways to 
> run Linux than with a GNU toolchain.

That's one of the most important consequences. As everything is open to 
everybody, every part can be replaced.

> 
> That said, I don't put much significance in the fact that Obama used 
> Free software in its election campaign. It all boils down to what the 
> guy in charge of the technical stuff is used to.

That's for sure one argument. The real question is if this is the main 
or the only reason for them. It's imho a good thing if there are people 
around the "most powerful man" who use (and hopefully also understand) 
free software.


> [parts missing..]
> And I'd also like to add that I don't see the Swedish (pp) as part of 
> the Free software movement. The Free software movement is a good example 
> that draconian Imaginary Property laws are not neccessary to encourage 
> creativity, not an ideal I expect everyone to adhere to.

If free software shows that it works, how can you say you understand 
people saying they don't believe it could work? For me being a pirate is 
very close to being a supporter of free software and open content in 
general. It's all about fighting information monopolies.

> 
> Personally, I think that it's perfectly healthy to have competition 
> between Free and proprietary software, as long as that doesn't mean 
> vendor lock-in, secret file format standards and software patent 
> mindfields[1]. Otherwise we might still be stuck with xterm, xeyes and 
> xclock running on twm. ;-)

Innovation can come out of open collaboration too. But the more 
important thing: If the points you mention are given, proprietary 
software has no chance to compete in the long term. If the need for 
solving a problem is strong enough in society, the code for it will be 
written. And as soon as it's done there is no reason to choose the 
unfree code.

The longer i read the discussions the more convinced I am that there are 
problems in defining the common stances of us pirates. I hope you'll 
have time to talk about those vital topics and find our least common 
denominator in Helsinki.

Have a nice day!