EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.23.09

Free Software Foundation Daemonised for Resisting Non-Free(dom) Software

Posted in Apple, DRM, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Virtualisation at 12:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents protest in India

Summary: Open Core proponent compares the FSF to religion as means of daemonisation and Jason Perlow does this by showing a humourous photo from Linus Torvalds, then throwing in another insult at Richard Stallman

THE OTHER day we wrote about the “Open Core movement”, of which Mono seems to have become a part. James Dixon, the CTO of Pentaho, slams the “Free Software movement”, sometimes by playing the usual card which is to compare them to a “religion” [1, 2, 3]. The Open Core advocates are generally unhappy with the critical views of the SFLC.

“To resist freedom-hostile software is not an intolerant action; it is responsive and defensive…”Jason Perlow, a self-admitted opponent of the FSF’s values [1, 2], is now using a photo of Linus Torvalds (captured in Tokyo the other day) to smear the FSF. He conveniently ‘forgets’ that the FSF has nothing to do with Microsoft and it’s not a response to Microsoft, either. The GNU project was started in the early eighties.

It seems safe to say that pro-GNU/Linux people who are also strongly pro-Apple are those who basically go for “anything but Microsoft” and are therefore the real so-called "Microsoft haters", as opposed to genuine proponents of Free software. They basically view Microsoft — not proprietary software, software patents, and unethical business conduct — as the single problem. It’s like targeting a boogeyman rather than behaviour; like targeting “terrorists” rather than addressing the cause of terrorism.

If it’s a case of just wanting to eradicate Microsoft and not elimination of users’ and developers’ rights as a whole, what gives? And who would then wonder the tendency to accept DRM, TPM and TiVoisation in Linux, for example? To resist freedom-hostile software is not an intolerant action; it is responsive and defensive due to gradual erosion of control. Software used to be free before proprietary ‘zealots’ came along. And it’s getting worse all the time, surveillance-, permission-, and ownership-wise.

“FSF did some anti-Apple campaigns too. Personally I worry more about Apple because they have user loyalty; Microsoft doesn’t.”

Bradley M. Kuhn (SFLC)

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

8 Comments

  1. jimmyed2000 said,

    October 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    Gravatar

    Bradley, I did not daemonize the FSF.

    I presented a logical argument that if you take an overtly ideological viewpoint of FOSS and apply it in all circumstances you limit the potential growth of FOSS.

    Serveral people commented on my post. No-one was inclined or able counter my logic.

    Speaking on behalf of the open core advocates, I am not unhappy with the critical views of the SFLC, in fact I would welcome the FSF as an ally. However, I think that your current views are counter-productive to your own goals in the long term – that you unfortunately ensure the survival of proprietary software.

    You have the right to object to my views, but it seems you are also unable to counter my logic.

    James Dixon, CTO, Pentaho

    your_friend Reply:

    This is the fanciest case of name calling I’ve seen in a while. Your argument is, “There are some circumstances where FSF ideology is not welcome.” As you do not welcome FSF ideology, your argument is correct but hardly meaningful. I do not know what an “overtly ideological viewpoint” or “potential growth” are, but all of this smells like the usual smear applied to free software advocates, “Those annoying people are harmful to free software.” It is especially funny when this argument is applied to RMS and others who basically created the concept of software freedom. You then advance to telling us that the FSF insures the survival of non free software. The exponential growth of free software is easy to demonstrate over any time period since the late 80s, mostly thanks to the efforts of organizations like FSF and GNU.

    The ideology of free software is simple, but I’m having a hard time understanding Open Core. Under what circumstances do you think it is OK to take away someone’s software freedom? Given a choice between free software and software that does the same thing but restricts your ability to share, why would you ever chose the restricted version? What specific task do you think free software will be unable to perform? As RMS once said, “You can’t get North by walking East.” It is surprising how many people try to liberate their software by embracing or otherwise promoting non free software companies.

  2. TheTruth said,

    October 24, 2009 at 8:17 am

    Gravatar

    “you cant get north by walking East”. WOW.

    I did not know we were on a flat earth !!!

    For a genius, he does come out with some rather odd comments.

  3. jimmyed2000 said,

    October 24, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Gravatar

    You are not really listening to me. I did not say that the FSF ideology is not welcome. I said that it is self-limiting in some cases. I am not attacking anyone or any group, I am pointing out a line of reasoning that I think is flawed.

    I agree that FOSS is growing. That is a good thing. Linux is a great example of that growth – but look at the Linux Foundation board – Novell, IBM, Oracle, Intel, AMD, TI, Motorola. Companies like these have helped the growth of Linux, yet these companies do not believe in the FSF ideology. It is by the inclusion of big companies that FOSS is growing, not by their exclusion.

    Open core does not take away anyone’s software freedom. If I write some software, it is my choice what I can do with it – I can delete it, forget about it, use it personally, share it with friends, use it at work. None of these choices limit anyone’s freedom. How can they? You make it sound like anything I do on my laptop automatically belongs to the world. This makes no sense to me.

    To quote Larry Wall (from your web site)
    ‘True greatness is measured by how much freedom you give to others, not by
    how much you can coerce others to do what you want.’
    — Larry Wall, March 1999, http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html

    Your ‘Open Core is the new Shareware’ seems to me to be an attempt to coerce companies (via threats of forking) to do what you want.

    I will repeat my argument one more time:
    The path to world domination by FOSS has to include the conversion of existing software vendors, future start-ups, and the mainstream markets over to a FOSS model. I say this because I don’t see a path to a FOSS future where all the existing vendors go out of business. Existing and new companies have to choose between proprietary, open core, or full FOSS. Unfortunately for most of those companies the full FOSS option is the least compelling from an economic perspective. If you create an anti-open core environment (by threatening pre-emptive forks) you now leave proprietary as their best option. So I believe that spreading an ideology that says 100% FOSS is the only acceptable model, and that anything which is 80% FOSS should be subverted and attacked, will likely result in the perpetuation of proprietary software. In addition stating that 5-10 person companies are the best ones for a open source business model further limits the potential adoption and creation of FOSS. You say above that if the FSF ideology is not welcome then my argument is correct but hardly meaningful. In order for world domination of FOSS an untold number of companies and people need to be educated and switched over – but most of those do not share the FSF ideology. I think that makes my argument very meaningful.

    Your RMS quote is relevant here – ‘You can’t get North by walking East’. That is true unless the direct path to the north is blocked by something, and walking east enables you to go around it. I think in this case Open Core is a way (at least in the short term) to get around the objections of the existing software companies and make faster progress towards a FOSS future.

    James Dixon, CTO, Pentaho

    your_friend Reply:

    Surrender is not progress. I am willing to accept that some people and companies will not agree to be civil and respect the software freedom of others. It would be better to ignore these anti-social groups than it would be to surrender software freedom. The most effective form of self limitation for software freedom is to deny its principles.

    No one should give up software freedom because it might be economically beneficial to a few companies. By your logic we would have to accept slavery and other crimes to promote justice. Justice will be universal if only we pervert it to a form big companies will accept. I don’t think so.

    The companies you mention are aggressors in a weak position. They have come to GNU because economic necessity. The same companies have forever demanded ownership of other people’s work. The success of GPL shows that people are tired of that kind of abuse and that sound economic models have been built around honest software. What you call “subversion” I call a free market in action. It would be a crime to give in to these companies now.

    You are free to do what you want for yourself with what you have. I will not force you to write code for me or anyone else. If your software comes without freedom, I don’t want it and I don’t need it. It is a toy at best and a malicious spy at it’s worst. Good luck competing with the huge body of available free software and its community.

  4. jimmyed2000 said,

    October 25, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Gravatar

    You continually talk about surrendering things and having things taken from you. How can you surrender something you don’t have? You talk as if the act of creating proprietary software takes something away from people. It cannot. This is nonsenses.

    The companies you say are ‘aggressors in a weak position’ are actively marketing Linus to mainstream software markets that are currently not FOSS aware or FOSS friendly. Ignoring the potential of other groups to help you reach your goals, and worse berating them, seems irrational to me.

    As I wrote before I welcome the FSF as an ally, but the ideology of the FSF seems to limit its ability to form alliances that would help it. Your statements above prove my point.

    James Dixon, CTO, Pentaho

    your_friend Reply:

    Proprietary software companies want to do what Tivo did and remove freedom from GNU software by restriction schemes and patents. The goal is to use free software without allowing real competition in their markets. That is a missappropriation of other people’s code that is anything but friendly to the FSF and the people who wrote the code.

    You use insults to dodge the issue. You advocate broad acceptance of missappropriation and charaterise opposition as “overtly ideological,” self defeating and somehow rude. If there were no conflict, the companies in question would use GPL 3 and thank the FSF for creating it. If you wish to contribute positively to this debate you would have answered my questions about which of the software freedoms you think companies should be allowed to remove and why. Good luck with that.

    I also smell hypocrisy in your demand for “world domination.” It would be silly of me to blindly back a collusion of companies to force on others a non free version of software that I use myself for freedom’s sake. Your “logical arguments” must include details of software freedom to gain the support of software freedom advocates.

  5. jimmyed2000 said,

    October 26, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Gravatar

    I’m sorry if you think I am insulting anyone, that is not my intention.

    I agree that companies should not be allowed to remove software freedoms that the creators granted. I’m not doing that, nor is open core company I know. However, I don’t think releasing proprietary software is removing a freedom – that freedom was never there to be removed – but I think that is what you are suggesting.

    You talk about companies forcing non-free software on you. No-one can force software on you. In the open-core model there is open source software that you can use if you want. You can also purchase enterprise features if you want. No-one forces anything on anyone, you just have choices. And there is no point in making the open source software crippled because there will be no adoption and no community. I keep hearing from SFS advocates that open-core companies make it so that everyone has to by the enterprise features. This is not true – the ratio of community members to customers in an open-core company is in the range of 100:1 to 10,000:1.

    My logical argument is that the SFS ideology is self-limiting because it prevents people forming alliances that help them achieve your goals. Where we differ is that I think there are non-FSF organizations (like open-core companies) that share common ground with you, you seem to think that there is no common ground. By stating your case, you are confirming my theory.

    I am interested to hear what you think the future looks like for FOSS. When the individuals, businesses, and governments of the world are all using FOSS software, what does the software market landscape look like? Are there only consulting companies? Have IBM, Oracle etc gone away? Who provides 24×7 support for large organizations? And, given this future, how do we migrate to it? What is the evolution from here to there? I have my own vision, with what I think is a realistic evolution, and I would like to hear an SFS one.

    James Dixon, CTO, Pentaho

What Else is New


  1. Links 24/2/2017: Ubuntu 17.04 Beta, OpenBSD Foundation Nets $573,000 in Donations

    Links for the day



  2. IAM, Greased up by the EPO, Continues Lobbying by Shaming Tactics for the UPC, Under the Guise of 'News'

    The shrill and well-paid writers of IAM are still at it, promoting the Unitary Patent (UPC) at every opportunity and every turn



  3. Patent Scope Gone Awry: European Vegetable Patents Office?

    In its misguided race to raise so-called 'production', the EPO lost sight of its original goals and now facilitates patent royalty payments/taxation for naturally-recurring items of nature



  4. Yes, There is Definitely Brain Drain (Experience Deficit) at the European Patent Office and Stakeholders Feel It

    The direction that the European Patent Office has taken under Battistelli undoes many decades (almost half a century) of reputation-building and progress and naturally this repels existing staff, not to mention hampers recruitment efforts



  5. The Sickness of the EPO – Part IV: Cruel Management That Deliberately Attacks the Sick and the Weak

    The dysphoric reality at the European Patent Office, which is becoming like a large cell (with bolted-down windows) where people are controlled by fear and scapegoats are selected to perpetuate this atmosphere of terror and maintain demand (or workload) for the Investigative Stasi



  6. Links 23/2/2017: Qt 5.9 Alpha, First SHA1 Collision

    Links for the day



  7. UPC Roundup: War on the Appeal Boards, British Motion Against the UPC, Fröhlinger Recalled, and Fake News About Spain

    Taking stock of some of the latest attempts to shove the Unitary Patent (UPC) down Europe's throat, courtesy of Team Battistelli and Team UPC



  8. The Sickness of the EPO – Part III: Invalidity and Suicides

    An explanation of what drives a lot of EPO veterans to depression and sometimes even suicide



  9. The Appeal Board (PTAB) and Federal Circuit (CAFC) Maintain Good Pace of Patent Elimination Where Scope Was Exceeded

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to accept about 4 out of 5 decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refuses to intervene



  10. Software Patents Are Ebbing Away, But the “Swamp” Fights Back and Hijacks the Word “Fix”

    The club of patent maximalists, or those who profit from excess prosecution and legal chaos, isn't liking what has happened in the United States and it wants everything reversed



  11. Report From Yesterday's Debate About the European Patent Office (EPO) at the Bavarian Landtag

    A report of the EPO debate which took place at the Bavarian Landtag yesterday (21/2/2017)



  12. Links 22/2/2017: Wine-Staging 2.2, Nautilus 3.24

    Links for the day



  13. French Politician Richard Yung Tells the Government About Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The subject of EPO scandals has once again landed in French politics, just a couple of months since it last happened



  14. The Sickness of the EPO – Part II: Background Information and Insights

    With a privatised, in-house (sometimes outsourced and for-profit) force for surveillance, policing, justice, public relations and now medical assessment (mere vassals or marionettes of the management) the EPO serves to show that it has become indistinguishable from North Korea, where the Supreme Leader gets to control every single aspect (absolutely no separation of powers)



  15. EPO Cartoon/Caricature by KrewinkelKrijst

    A new rendition by Dutch cartoonist and illustrator KrewinkelKrijst



  16. Inverting Narratives: IAM 'Magazine' Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless

    Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft's tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as "pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products") as seen in IAM almost every week these days



  17. The Sickness of the EPO – Part I: Motivation for New Series of Articles

    An introduction or prelude to a long series of upcoming posts, whose purpose is to show governance by coercion, pressure, retribution and tribalism rather than professional relationship between human beings at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  18. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

    The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself "the largest European cancer patients' umbrella organisation," fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse



  19. Links 21/2/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9.2 in Chakra GNU/Linux, pfSense 2.3.3

    Links for the day



  20. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's Wall

    Battistelli's solution to everything at the EPO is exclusion and barriers



  21. The 'New' Microsoft is Still Acting Like a Dangerous Cult in an Effort to Hijack and/or Undermine All Free/Open Source Software

    In an effort to combat any large deployment of non-Microsoft software, the company goes personal and attempts to overthrow even management that is not receptive to Microsoft's agenda



  22. PTAB Petitioned to Help Against Patent Troll InfoGation Corp., Which Goes After Linux/Android OEMs in China

    A new example of software patents against Free software, or trolls against companies that are distributing freedom-respecting software from a country where these patents are not even potent (they don't exist there)



  23. Links 20/2/2017: Linux 4.10, LineageOS Milestone

    Links for the day



  24. No, Doing Mathematical Operations on a Processor Does Not Make Algorithms Patent-Eligible

    Old and familiar tricks -- a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines -- are being peddled by Watchtroll again



  25. Paid-for UPC Proponent, IAM 'Magazine', Debunked on UPC Again

    The impact of the corrupted (by EPO money) media goes further than one might expect and even 'borrows' out-of-date news in order to promote the UPC



  26. Lack of Justice in and Around the EPO Drawing Scrutiny

    The status of the EPO as an entity above the law (in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and so on) is becoming the subject of press reports and staff is leaving in large numbers



  27. Links 19/2/2017: GParted 0.28.1, LibreOffice Donations Record

    Links for the day



  28. The EPO is Becoming an Embarrassment to Europe and a Growing Threat to the European Union

    The increasingly pathetic moves by Battistelli and the ever-declining image/status of the EPO (only 0% of polled stakeholders approve Battistelli's management) is causing damage to the reputation of the European Union, even if the EPO is not a European Union organ but an international one



  29. Patent Misconceptions Promoted by the Patent Meta-Industry

    Cherry-picking one's way into the perception of patent eligibility for software and the misguided belief that without patents there will be no innovation



  30. As the United States Shuts Its Door on Low-Quality Patents the Patent Trolls Move to Asia

    Disintegration of Intellectual Ventures (further shrinkage after losing software patents at CAFC), China's massive patent bubble, and Singapore's implicit invitation/facilitation of patent trolls (bubble economy)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts