Please share your thoughts on free software. In this case, Richard Stallman's free: "software that is free as in speech, not as in beer." Specifically free software as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Also, please include your thoughts on non-free software.
Respectfully,
Cotton
Whilst I can't speak for the TS crew if I'm not mistaken they have touched on this subject in the past and generally seem to be more pro - 'Open Source' rather than out-and-out 'Free Software'.
This in itself would be an interesting topic - what consitutes 'non-free' software? Only things that you can't access the source code for or anything that does not use a CopyLeft licence?
Even the GPL v2 was not enough for Richard Stallman, so when does free stop being 'free' enough?
I personally feel Open Source will not solve most of the problems people complain about on a daily basis when it comes to their paranoia, privacy or whatever. and I don't think it's the answer to all the problems in the technology world.
Not everything on this world can be free. it's just the way life is. lets say you as a developer, you make a program and then someone comes up to you and says you need to give up YOUR CODE so we can see it, I need to see what you're doing.. you know what's going to be your response? "I don't have to show you shit. it's mine, I made it." the constant need that everything needs to be free is somewhat selfish really. not that I'm against it. though not everything can be free. just like not everything has to Open Sourced cause you feel a certain type of way, cause you read an article that made you paranoid.
The thing with Richard Stallman is Code is not speech.. well it is, though I mean it's not a constitutional right as much as he likes to think it is. No one has to make things free, and no one has to give away anything. they do it out of the kindness of their heart.
While I personally think free and open software is a logical step forward, I was always wondering about some things with regard to what "qualifies" as free software and what doesn't.
Why is it, for instance, that free software is often distributed under various licenses (like GPL) and not simply released into the public domain? While those licenses are certainly not ill-willed they still impose certain restrictions, which could be removed to make the software even more "free" (which is supposedly what the free software foundation wants, right?).
Another thing I find somewhat unreasonable is this part of the free software foundation's definition of free software:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this"
Why is access to the source code a requirement?. I mean, I know why access to the source code is really useful and why you might want more software to be open source, but you can study and modify an application without access to the source code, it's just more inconvenient. To make this point more understandable, think of it from the position of an assembly programmer (who does not comment his source code for some reason): You create an application and give away the executable file freely, but don't give access to the source code. You're application is not free, because the source code is not available. So you provide access to the source code, you're application is now free. But the source code doesn't make your application any more open than it was before and it's still just as "open" as software otherwise thought of as closed-source and proprietary.
The way I see it anything you can do with open-source software you can do with closed-source software, too, open-source is just preferred for various reasons. Or is there a difference I'm not thinking of?
Your thought about how GPL free software is distributed is an interesting point. Isn't forcing someone to agree to the GPL's terms somewhat coercive? Would a BSD licence, which allows you the choice to decide to open source your code, be more free?
However, I think they would justify it by saying it's done for the right intentions. In other words, it's written to ensure the freedom of the consumer and not the producer. (That sounds weird, let me explain).
It needs to be open source because, according to FSF, that's a fundamental right provided to users of software. It's one of its defining principles that the source code is available. Think of it like an amendment to the US Constitution; it's a rule (something which limits another's freedom) in place to ensure freedom.
For the assembly programmer's program, if I'm understanding your analogy, to me, it appears you may be confusing free (cost) with free (freedom). Firstly, keep in mind, according to FSF, free software can be sold for profit. It doesn't have to be given away for no cost. However, closed source software, even if given away for no cost (freeware) wouldn't be considered free (freedom). This is because it will likely be difficult to determine how the program works. For example, is this program spying on me or installing features that may not be necessary, or which the user doesn't want.
Now, assuming I've been right on the above - here is a play on your assembly program and poor documentation. Would a programmer have to document his source code well in order for it to be a free program? I mean, if it's poorly documented doesn't that make the program difficult to determine how it works?
1.I simply disagree with forcing what the developer deems right onto others through the license.
2.I am aware of the different kinds of "free", although I now see that my example wasn't very clear, so let me try again.
My point is basically, that the open-source requirement is pretty arbitrary in general, since it's not directly tied to anything related to free software. Sure, usually open-source software is transparent and can be easily modified, but neither does the availability of the source necessarily cause that (assembly programmer example), nor is the availability of the source necessary to accomplish that.
In the end the FSF has good intentions and whether or not the source is a requirement is a pretty small technicality, but it's one I'm annoyed at, because I don't like seeing persons acting as though closed-source software is completely inaccessible and thus doomed to be left unused.
I am a fan of Torvalds view on it:
Open source is more scientific. It alloes for iteration and improvements at a faster rate like research. Taking the idea of a "Republic of Science" to software makes sense. The best ideas flourish while dead ends are abandoned.
ESR's The Cathedral and the Bazaar has a similar stance. "All bugs are shallow given enough eyes" Example: Heartbleed and Shell Shock were patched incredibly quickly.
As it stand right now GPL 3.0 is overly cohesive, MIT, BSD, and Apache all provide better licenses than GPL. Stallman argues from a moral stand point, which is pointless.