185 lines
9.6 KiB
Plaintext
185 lines
9.6 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
<p>While I have no comment on the recent events surrounding Richard
|
||
Stallman, I do feel this is the right time to reflect on the pernicious
|
||
insistence on technicalities that is hampering our efforts to educate
|
||
people about the virtues of software freedom. I also believe this is an
|
||
opportune moment to address the topic of leadership within the broader
|
||
community.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>Free software vs open source</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>Consider the distinction between free software and open source. The
|
||
<a href="https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns">Free Software Foundation’s former
|
||
president</a> would
|
||
argue that the latter is part of a devious plan to undermine the former.
|
||
The idea is that “open source” does not emphasise the ethical side of
|
||
things that the FSF wants to promote. This, in turn, allows
|
||
corporations to peddle open source solutions without educating their
|
||
users about software freedom.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>I find this argument tenuous. Reading through the <a href="https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian Free Software
|
||
Guidelines</a> and/or
|
||
the <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">Open Source Definition</a> gives me
|
||
assurances of a technical as well as an ethical sort. It is a
|
||
misrepresentation of facts to consider “open source” as <em>purely</em>
|
||
technical, for it does expressly grant liberties to users.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>If a corporation is making something that is truly open source, then we
|
||
have the right to access the source code, modify it, redistribute it,
|
||
etc. In other words, it is <em>free</em> software.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>What would be a valid concern in this debate is companies engaging in
|
||
fraudulent practices, where they would use confusing language to market
|
||
their products. For example, “open core” accompanied by extremely
|
||
complex license structures tangled with patents and other restrictions.
|
||
Here we can indeed raise the alarm. Such products deny us of our
|
||
freedom.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>But we must never conflate legitimate open source with fraud. Doing so
|
||
in a manner that is consistent and systematic is a disservice to our
|
||
cause. It also is dishonest.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>As for arguments about emphasising freedom, these too miss the point.
|
||
It is not the job of each individual developer or piece of software to
|
||
preach about the four freedoms. Let entities like the FSF handle the
|
||
task of educating people on that front. They are better equipped for
|
||
the task.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>Free, libre, gratis</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>We all know that the word “free” is polysemous. This compounds the
|
||
problem of insisting that free software is not open source, because now
|
||
we must spend an inordinate amount of time explaining the difference
|
||
between free as in beer and free as in freedom. Then we must borrow
|
||
words that the average English speaker is not familiar with to help us
|
||
in our pedantry. The one is gratis, the other is libre.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Language is an intersubjective phenomenon, meaning that it is not enough
|
||
for us to find increasingly obscure ways of describing the various
|
||
analytical constructs we have deduced. Everyone listening to us must
|
||
also be on the same wavelength. Else the message is lost in
|
||
translation.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>As such, when we try to attract new users to our community, we face the
|
||
impossible task of first indoctrinating them about abstract concepts and
|
||
only then delving into the specifics of our applications and operating
|
||
systems.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Yes, there is a value to insisting on precision of statement. The right
|
||
words can be very important to achieve clarity of concept. However, we
|
||
must have a sense of the prevailing circumstances and the context:
|
||
people have their beliefs and use whatever is given to them to get the
|
||
job done. I thus find it more effective to show them in practice the
|
||
tangible benefits of free software. Only once I have their undivided
|
||
attention I can, <em>where appropriate</em>, address technicalities of this
|
||
sort.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>Free software is not a dogma</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>It is common for activists to misinterpret their cause as justification
|
||
for absolutism. The result is a binary world-view whereby the cause is
|
||
perceived as purely good and must be pursued at all costs, while
|
||
everything else is evil and should be eliminated with extreme prejudice.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Free software is no different. The underlying reason we have all this
|
||
pedantry is because some people do not keep things in perspective. They
|
||
are too idealistic to recognise any possible deviation from their
|
||
reified concepts. They are blinded by their vaunted beliefs to the fact
|
||
that the world is complex and does not conform with some simplistic
|
||
categorisation along the lines of good versus bad.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>We should not have to atone for some spurious sin of using non-free
|
||
software, especially when it is done out of practical necessity. There
|
||
are forces outside our control which compel us into action. We do not
|
||
unilaterally decide on the prevailing conditions in our workplace, our
|
||
immediate locality, our politics at-large. We may not have access to
|
||
the means that enable a life of 100% software freedom. Or, more likely,
|
||
we may not have the luxury of offloading all non-free-software
|
||
interactions to a trusted intermediary. There are permutations and
|
||
combinations in between the morally black-and-white world that certain
|
||
groups think they live in.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Absolutism engenders elitism, which can in turn produce cults of
|
||
personality or beget trolling. This comes in various forms. Think of
|
||
the tacit—at times explicit—praise that Linus Torvalds receives (used
|
||
to?) each time he goes on one of his usual abusive rants. Consider how
|
||
the “btw I use Arch” meme provides grist to the mill of the buffoons
|
||
that attack users for choosing “Noobuntu”. Then there is this
|
||
misunderstanding about the Unix philosophy that fuels the talk about
|
||
“bloat” in free software (see my relevant video blog: <a href="https://protesilaos.com/codelog/2019-08-09-vlog-emacs-unix/">Emacs mindset and
|
||
Unix philosophy</a>).</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The overarching theme is that pedantry, else elitism, leads to patterns
|
||
of behaviour that are against the very people that are attracted to free
|
||
software. Users choose open source for a variety of reasons, usually
|
||
practical and then, after some further research, moral or political.
|
||
Even then practicality remains of paramount importance.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>While data is not available, I will dare speculate on this: it would be
|
||
rather odd to find that new users are attracted to free software
|
||
primarily because they were impressed by Stallman’s or Torvalds’
|
||
toxicity, or were persuaded by some troll’s musings about bloat in
|
||
Linux distros…</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>Leadership in free software</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>One of the reasons I was attracted to Debian is their system of
|
||
governance. The “Debian Project Leader” is not what the title may
|
||
imply: their role is mostly that of a public face for the project as
|
||
well as a liaison between the various specialised task forces that
|
||
comprise Debian. The DPL wields no real power, in the sense of being
|
||
able to pass orders backed by threats. They essentially are just
|
||
another developer who has to deal with even more email traffic while “in
|
||
charge”.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>In my time as a Debian user, the DPLs have been Chris Lamb and now Sam
|
||
Hartman. I know more about the former, though the latter has given me a
|
||
positive first impression. People such as those two are prime examples
|
||
of what the free software community needs more of. Individuals who are
|
||
approachable and who are not cult favourites for all the wrong reasons.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Debian’s structure facilitates the election of such personalities. The
|
||
project is organised in a distributed manner. Every field has its own
|
||
dedicated team, its own domain experts. The different teams coordinate
|
||
their work with the help of the DPL where necessary. What we end-users
|
||
understand as Debian is the concerted action of a world-wide community
|
||
that effectively operates without a figurehead.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The lesson to be learnt is that free software communities must adopt
|
||
decisions and resolve tensions in ways that are consistent with the
|
||
spirit of freedom that unites them. The notion of a powerful leader who
|
||
can single-handedly forward the cause and stand up against the forces of
|
||
“evil” (recall the binary world-view) is better suited to rigid
|
||
hierarchies.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2>Focus on software</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>Judging from my experience and that of people I have directly helped
|
||
start their free software endeavours, there is little appetite for
|
||
joining some quasi-religious group. Users want to solve practical
|
||
problems. They do not wish to partake in some meaningless collective
|
||
flattery on Reddit centred on Stallman’s or Torvalds’ latest obnoxious
|
||
antics.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>This impression I have is further reinforced by the feedback I receive
|
||
via email or in my screen casts that currently focus on Emacs. Users
|
||
appreciate practical tips that make a tangible difference in their
|
||
workflow. Someone watching these might want to try out Emacs in an
|
||
attempt to boost their productivity. There are no exhortations. No
|
||
pretences of holding the moral high ground. Just the software and the
|
||
real benefits it offers.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Perhaps then, it would be more interesting and fecund if we stopped
|
||
caring about emblematic leaders and focused our efforts on improving the
|
||
tools we have or, as in my case, making their value more apparent to end
|
||
users.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Then all the controversies surrounding the likes of Stallman or Torvalds
|
||
become background noise that we can easily ignore. Free software—open
|
||
source, if you will—must always be about the code and the concomitant
|
||
freedoms attached to it. All the rest ends up supporting the agendas
|
||
and inflating the egos of individuals, much to the detriment of the
|
||
community at-large.</p>
|
||
|
||
|