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. From Alleged Organised Crime to Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Željko Topić's situation in Croatia illuminated by means of recent documents from the authorities



  2. Battistelli May Still be on the Way Out as Pressure Grows in Germany, UPC in Shambles

    Pressure on Battistelli is growing even from within circles that are traditionally protective of him and a long letter is sent to Dr. Christoph Ernst, who some believe will replace Battistelli



  3. Caricature: European Patent Office (EPO) Under Battistelli

    The latest caricature about the state of the European Patent Office (EPO)



  4. Techrights (Almost) at 10: From Software Patents to Novell and to Present Focus on EPO

    A short story about how and why we ended up writing so much about the European Patent Office (EPO) and the impact beyond Europe



  5. Patents Roundup: Bad Quality (USPTO), Bad Analysis (India), Bad Microsoft, Bad Actors (Trolls), Bad Scope (Software Patents), and the Ugly

    A mishmash of news about patents, mostly regarding the United States, and what can be deduced at the moment



  6. Links 26/6/2016: IceCat 38.8.0, Wine 1.9.13

    Links for the day



  7. With UPC Dead for Battistelli's Entire Remaining Term, No Reason for the EPO or the Administrative Council to Keep Battistelli Around

    Thoughts about what happens to the EPO's leadership after 'Brexit' (British exit from the EU), which severely undermines Battistelli's biggest project that he habitually used to justify his incredible abuses



  8. Links 24/6/2016: Xen Project 4.7, Cinnamon 3.0.6

    Links for the day



  9. Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated)

    Benoît Battistelli continues to break the EPO's own rules, not just national laws, as a new decision helps reveal



  10. Fake Patents on Software From Fake Australian 'Inventor' of Bitcoin and the Globally-Contagious Nature of EPO Patent Scope

    News from Australia regarding software patents that should not be granted and how patent lawyers from Australia rely on European patent law (EPO and UK-IPO) for guidance on patent scope



  11. Patent Lawyers Love (and Amplify) Halo and Enfish, Omit or Dismiss Cuozzo and Alice

    By misinterpreting the current situation with respect to software patents and misusing terms like "innovation" patent lawyers and others in the patent microcosm hope to convince the public (or potential clients) that nothing in effect has changed and software patents are all fine and dandy



  12. Looks Increasingly Plausible That Battistelli is Covering up Bogus and/or Illegally-Obtained 'Evidence' From the EPO's Investigative Unit

    Why we believe that Benoît Battistelli is growingly desperate to hide evidence of rogue evidence-collecting operations which eventually landed himself -- not the accused -- in a catastrophic situation that can force his resignation



  13. As Decision on the UK's EU Status Looms, EPO Deep in a Crisis of Patent Quality

    Chaotic situation at the EPO and potential changes in the UK cause a great deal of debate about the UPC, which threatens to put the whole or Europe at the mercy of patent trolls from abroad



  14. Another Demonstration by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff on Same Day as Administrative Council's Meeting

    SUEPO (staff union of the EPO) continues to organise staff actions against extraordinary injustice by Benoît Battistelli and his flunkies whom he gave top positions at the EPO



  15. Links 23/6/2016: Red Hat Results, Randa Stories

    Links for the day



  16. Interview With FOSSForce/All Things Free Tech

    New interview with Robin "Roblimo" Miller on behalf of FOSSForce



  17. Links 22/6/2016: PulseAudio 9.0, GNOME 3.21.3 Released

    Links for the day



  18. IP Europe's UPC Lobbying and the EPO Connection

    The loose but seemingly ever-growing connections between AstroTurfing groups like IP Europe (pretending to represent SMEs) and EPO staff which is lobbying-centric



  19. EPO “Recruitment of Brits is Down by 80%”

    Letter says that “recruitment of Brits is down by 80%” and "the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year"



  20. The Conspiracy of Patent Lawyers for UPC and Battistelli's Role in Preparing by Firing People

    The parasitic firms that lobby for the UPC and actually create it -- firms like those that pass money to Battistelli's EPO -- are doing exactly the opposite of what Europe needs



  21. Patent Lawyers, Having Lost Much of the Battle for Software Patents in the US, Resort to Harmful Measures and Spin

    A quick glance at how patent lawyers and their lobbyists/advocates have reacted to the latest decision from the US Supreme Court (Justice Breyer)



  22. Links 21/6/2016: Fedora 24 and Point Linux MATE 3.2 Officially Released

    Links for the day



  23. Supreme Court on Cuozzo v Lee Another Major Loss for Software Patents in the United States

    Much-anticipated decision on the Cuozzo v Lee case (at the highest possible level) serves to defend the appeal boards which are eliminating software patents by the thousands



  24. As Alice Turns Two, Bilski Blog Says 36,000 (Software) Patent Applications Have Been Rejected Thanks to It

    A look back at the legacy of Alice v CLS Bank and how it contributed to the demise of software patents in the United States, the birthplace of software patents



  25. EPO Self-Censorship by IP Kat or Just Censorship of Opinions That IP Kat Does Not Share/Accept (Updated)

    ree speech when it's needed the most (EPO scandals) needs to be respected; or why IP Kat shoots itself in the foot and helps the EPO's management by 'sanitising' comments



  26. Caricature: Bygmalion Patent Office

    The latest cartoon regarding Battistelli's European Patent Office



  27. Links 21/6/2016: GNU/Linux in China's HPC, Linux 4.7 RC4

    Links for the day



  28. Under Battistelli's Regime the EPO is a Lawless, Dark Place

    How the EPO's Investigative Unit (IU) and Control Risks Group (CRG), which is connected to the Stasi through Desa, made the EPO virtually indistinguishable from East Germany (coat of arms/emblem above)



  29. New Paper Demonstrates That Unitary Patent (UPC) is Little More Than a Conspiracy of Patent 'Professionals' and Their Self Interest

    Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna's latest paper explains that the UPC “expert teams” are in fact not experts but people who are using the UPC as a Trojan horse by which to promote their business interests and corporate objectives



  30. Money Flying to Private Companies Without Tenders at Battistelli's EPO (by the Tens of Millions!)

    Extravagant and cushy contracts to the tune of tens of millions of Euros are being issued without public scrutiny and without opportunities to competition (few corporations easily score cushy EPO contracts while illusion of tendering persists -- for small jobs only)


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