rixed homepage

Last modified :2008-08-21.

We the people want free beers !

"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate." Richard M. Stallman

I had the dream that free software were just software ruled by technical rather than commercial issues. That apart from all merchants trying to attract customers, there were individuals associated to code good programs and to share them. The fact that we were given source code was then implied by the fact that authors were not trying to sell us anything.

But I get annoyed recently as I noticed how frequently nearly everybody seemed to emphasize the distinction between open source and non-commercial. Looks like this very idea of non-commercial software is not that pleasant for the "community".

Is there an historian in the room to tell us if this is a recent evolution from the "community" or if I was day dreaming from the beginning ? After all, the initial announcement from M. Stallman concerning GNU was clear about it, even retrospectively :

" Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air"

" if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it"

" I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work."

All seemed clear to me : the whole thing was about doing things for free (as in free beer) ; the GNU project was then in my views a programmers association like there exist musicians associations where musicians play music just for the enjoyment of it, eventually asking for funding or making a living in another way.

I was wrong, apparently.

Anyway, I'm still asking myself why so much people, in newsgroups, websites, etc, are pushing forward as often as possible the idea that the GNU Public License is not to be understood as a license for software that you get without payment but software you get with no use restriction - including the "use" which consist of selling the software.

The FSF itself keeps repeating that, after all, a company could "sell" free software, and that it even should do, and the more expensive the better.

- Wait a minute, while copying the software remains allowed ?
- Yes.
- People would then buy a program they could have obtained freely ?
- No, the user would buy a clean packaging from a distributor, a clear manual, etc, everything they wouldn't obtain by copying the software. A distributor sells the service of installing, packaging, Internet hosting, whatever. They sell service and give software for free.
- So, developing software must result to a GPL product available freely, while the service of, say, hosting a free software repository is encouraged to turn into a business involving restriction of the service to authorised people only ?
- You got it !
- Because society needs open source, but not open access to software repositories ?!?

This seams illogical. The distinction between software and service was historically established by the FSF (I say "historically" because I feel like this argument is less and less argued for) based on the fact that software costs nothing to reproduce, while the marginal costs of other material goods is not null. If this is true, then the FSF should also clearly provide a statement that music and movie records should indeed be free (which RMS did not when he spoke on this matter at the french 2004 LinuxExpo - even if he does agree, actually, I think).

There is nothing specifically wrong with the belief that a zero marginal cost should lead to gratis distribution. But why it is not the case in real life deserves more explanations. I believe that such explanations leads to the commercial rules of profit, and then that we should, instead of encouraging it, warn against it - so, instead of drawing a distinction between free as in freedom and free as in free beer, we should explain that one cannot go nowhere without the other.

That is why we need a free as in free beer campaign, to rehabilitate the anti-commercial spirit as a necessary part of free software. so let's launch the "Free as in free beer" campaign people, lets unite we thousands of voiceless coders and users, lets fight business out of this world, lets change the course of the universe and make the open source community to worry less about their stomach, drop their suit and become hairy again, so come on, people, lets kill the law of value !

Here it is, spread the words people :

"Free as in free beer"

Preamble

The FSF philosophy is particularly unclear concerning economics, mainly because it sees the question as a question of rights. Once having established the distinction between funding software development and the current practice of the software industry, which is selling each copy of software, it lacks to suggest credible alternative proposals for getting a living out of developing software in practice. It first speak about retribution via donations, but then encourage companies to sell free software, thus keeping alive the old schema of remuneration that leads to the strong will for profits that leads to today's situation in software industry (and in any) : proprietary software, patents, restrictions, code bundled into ruinous protections, commercial considerations ruling technical ones...

Thus, the GNU project fails to warn against the real threat.

The Free as in free beer campaign want to reaffirm the incompatibility of freedom with profits, by stating that :

Supporting "Free as in free beer" campaign

If you want to support the "Free as in free beer" campaign, you can :

Troubleshooting

Some people may think that if one does not have the freedom to sell, then the users are less free.
Notice how this sounds like the usual BSD vs GPL debate whether being able to close the source code gives freedom or not. In both cases, the word "user" means two very different things, for two very different uses : non-profit or commercial. Like it or not, this distinction can not be swept under the carpet as it rules the whole problem (if not our whole lives).

I have stated why non-commercial software bring more freedom than the GPL to the average user, put aside the poor souls anxious about profits. Notice however that this is probably useles to make any addition to the GNU license on that matter, for profits and open source are rather incompatible anyway - thus, I'm not here talking about a free beer license but campaign or label.



Closing Quotes from M. Stallman

I do not want, in this rant, to focus on M. Stallman, and when I say "The FSF", I do not mean "M. Stallman". A lot of people are criticizing M. Stallman these days, for his "sectarianism", "radicalism", or other "isms". Mainly, those people do not like "isms" and think its enough to enumerate thingisms to seal a case. If you read though here, you should have understood that I do not share these ideas. At the contrary, I found the reading of M. Stallman very interesting.

So, lets end by a quote from M. Stallman, where he explains the difference between funding and selling :

" It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners. Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction to smooth driving--artificial, because it is not a consequence of how roads or cars work.

Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use.(2) In a poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be free.

When the advocates of toll booths propose them as merely a way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.

Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for our money by buying a free road.

I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used the road--but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion.

To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show that having ``toll booths'' for useful software programs costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and efficient to use. It will follow that program construction should be encouraged in some other way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding software development. "

Here, M. Stallman try, despite what was just written, to rehabilitate the idea of profit. In the category "fast cars are not bad as long as you drive slowly", the winner is :

"There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction."

 

This site is optimized for W3C compliant browser(s?).

Valid XHTML 1.0?

Valid CSS?

Hosted on Happyleptic