[pp.int.general] Why Free Software misses the point

[Ole Husgaard]

Richard Stallman skrev:
> These arguments are based on users' freedom (or lack of it).  With
> free software, the users control the software.  With proprietary
> software, the software controls the users; and since the developer or
> owner conterls the software, he has power over the users.
Well stated, but I need to comment on this.

If the proprietary software owner abuses his power too much, people are
still free to create their own free software with the same functionality
- unless the software is patented.

With software patents even this basic freedom is taken away. This is one
of several reasons why it is extremely important that no patents on
software or methods of doing business should be allowed.

> Open source supporters limit their concern to how to develop software
> of high quality, and do not raise the issue of who controls your
> computing.
>   
It has always annoyed me a bit that FSF seems so much in opposition to
open source. All open source software protects at least some of the four
freedoms of free software, and that is IMHO a lot better than most
proprietary software.

I think this opposition is because FSF is based on a moral philosophy,
while open source is based on pragmatics. But even pragmatics should be
better endorsed by FSF to the extent that the licenses are in line with
the philosophy of FSF. To the extent that the licenses violate the
philosophy this should be explicitly pointed out, but because of the
many different open source licenses this is not simple.

Today I work with proprietary software, using a lot of open source
software, and even being based on - and linked to - an application
server environment under LGPL. When I negotiated my employment contract
I wanted to be able to contribute changes I did to all open source code
back to the community, not just free software (most of which is copyleft
anyway, requiring this when modified copies are distributed in binary
form). So in the language of my employment contract I opted to use the
wider definition of open source instead of the definition of free
software, giving me more freedom to contribute changes back to the
community.

In this case the open source definition was really useful for me, as it
gave me better freedom to contribute changes back to more software
projects. Without the definition of open source I would have had to use
the more narrow definition of free software.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.