Re: The basic fact about the free software movement and the problem, the solution

nobody_at_nowhere.nonet
Date: 06/20/04 

Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:53:35 GMT

Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> spewed this unto the Network:
> The basic fact about the free software movement is that it is
> split into two camps --
>
> 1. The libertarians, who are excessively pro-business and
> in particular pro-corporate, who often have corporate jobs
> and often proclaim free software is a free ride for business
> interests, therefore good. The libertarians are responsible
> for adding numerous business- and government-friendly packages to Linux.
> Libertarians are enthusiastic about making Linux competitive with
> Windows to the point of making it look-and-feel almost identical.

None of the corporate contributions to the Linux kernel are look-and-feel
contributions. Some of the recent look-and-feel changes to desktop
applications on Linux were inspired by Mac OS, not Windows. Microsoft
imitated some of the look and feel of X in Windows XP. So it's not only
Linux trying to be like Windows. Windows is trying to be like Linux, too.

> The motto of a libertarian is "might makes right" or the equally
> ugly phrase "one dollar one vote". Libertarians would argue
> endlessly against a public license that prohibits
> large firms from using free software.

Those are certainly mottos of George W. Bush, who is no
Libertarian. Libertarians believe that a set of metaphysical "natural
laws" make right. These "natural laws" just -=happen=- to work strongly
in favor of people who own lots of property.

> and

> 2. The anarchists, who want to tear down big business because
> it's a frankenstain monster that abuses workers, consumers,
> and governments and who thus prefer small firms, if any firms
> at all. Anarchists are more likely to talk about how free software
> empowers individuals and they would never, as a rule, use M$ software.
> Anarchists are just as like to use the command line as X Windows.
> The motto of an anarchist might be "watch David slay Goliath".
> Anarchists would not mind seeing a public license that prohibits
> large firms from using the software.

The only interest anarchists have in open-source software is as an example
of anarchy-in-action. They like the do-it-yourself nature of OSS, and they
especially like the fact that nobody owns the code, because they would
prefer it if nobody owned the planet. OSS has inspired what anarchists
call "direct action" among the non-anarchist Left, which anarchists like
a lot. "Direct action" is sometimes described as being "open source,"
even though it has nothing to do with software.

> The problem is that it is the libertarians who are winning
> the struggle for control of Linux, and because the general public
> naturally will view the libertarians as the weaker-willed
> and less virtuous of the two camps, since nobody loves someone
> who caves into the bully (big business), or who represents the bully.
> And this is a loss for Linux. Linux is no longer the David against Goliath
> but seems to be Goliath's sidekick. Thus the public has less and less
> inclination to use Linux and free software as time goes by.

No matter what happens, nobody can actually "take control" of Linux. In
order to control it, the source would have to be closed, which is
physically impossible, because so many Linux users have their own copy of
the source, and nobody has been keeping track of who has the source, so
you can't just go out and confiscate it.

Furthermore, the spread of Linux is being hindered more by Windows
software incompatibility than by people perceiving Linux as being Yet
Another Capitalist Product. The whole capitalist-vs-anarchist struggle
is very obscure. Most people don't even know it exists.

> The solution to this problem is to dump the GPL and instead
> use a non-corporate license that specifically prohibits companies
> over perhaps 5 people from using the software, on pain of
> lawsuit. To ensure compliance, software should be written with
> a kind of pinger that accesses a server ; if the ping comes from
> a known-to-be-corporate site e.g. sun.com, then the server software
> tells the program to shut down.

This is not a solution that would be proposed by anarchists. Licenses
require the state for enforcement, and, since it's open-source, the
code to determine if the localhost is corporate-owned could be easily
removed.

Relevant Pages