Impressions from the lecture; followed by comments: I've read tons of philosophical summaries from the FSF, the Open Source Initiative, and various other sources, which left me a bit confused. I was most impressed with Richard Stallman's clarity, and would recommend one of his talks to anybody interested in understanding the FSF's position. With regards to freedom, ethics, and software, the conclusion I drew from last night's presentation is that one must accept that the four fundamental freedoms (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) are (or ought to be, for you) inalienable rights. If one accepts that these are inalienable rights (see http://bostonreview.net/BR24.2/waldron.html, second paragraph for a good discussion of what this means), then the rest of his conclusions are just ... truths. I suspect that many of those who take issue with the FSFs philosophy simply don't accept that they ought to have these rights, in which case the rest of the arguments fall flat. It was also enlightening to have copyleft explicitly separated from free software; specifically, copyleft is a feature of the GPL (and some other licences) that restricts (my own word) the freedom of a distributor of the software in order to preserve the greater freedom. Software need not be copyleft'd to be free, it's just a nice feature. Robert Brown wrote: > We needed to have worn our TCGLUG hats. My buddy Joe and I were > there. After we had already sat down at Townhall, we were pretty sure > we spotted some geeks walk in. I don't have one ... where can they be acquired? > I too left at auction time. Too bad he took so long. I was really > glad to hear him speak about copyleft and patent law. Despite the > solipsisms and the weak arguments, I find there's a fair amount of > commonality with his theories on freedom and software and the problems > of intellectual property and copyright. What I'm curious about is > whether he can see these commonalities and what he has to say about > that. Is it all about software? > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:22 PM, John Gateley <tclug at jfoo.org> wrote: >> p.daniels wrote: >>> So most of you are probably out drinking. Damn my poverty. >> I didn't see anyone else at Townhall. I had a nice Octoberfest >> and a blueberry oatmeal pale though. >> >>> A question that I walked away with actually stemed from the Q&A after >>> the main lecture. Someone brought up a question regarding perceived >>> incompatibility between free software and regulated industries (in this >>> example, medical device software). >> I didn't stay once they began auctioning the gnu, but I was interested >> in this question. I think it is a broader question: what about any >> software, such as medical or the software that controls your car, where >> there is a cost to failure. He was quite adamant throughout his talk >> about not using ANY software that wasn't free, and I would have been >> interested in his comments on this. I agree that his answers were brusque, and felt it was a symptom of his clarity. The question about regulated industries and risk was kind of dismissed by Stallman, as he didn't see it as relevant to his core topic. I think it's easy to address, however (I work closely with regulatory affairs in a cGMP FDA regulated company). The questioner asked something about how buying proprietary software transfers some of the risk to the supplier. The perception of risk transference is attractive to management, but does not absolve the purchaser of risk, unless it is explicitly provided by contract (i.e., the proprietary software provider clearly assumes certain risks in the contract. Most licenses explicitly absolve the proprietary software provider of risks.) If a company wanted to use free software for this application, their requirement would be to establish quality control (QC), and to optionally manage their risk by purchasing specific insurance (which would of course be more affordable if good QC purchases are in place). His comments on device software were interesting. I especially liked his statement that if it's a computer, meant for using and customizing software, than the ideas of freedom apply. If you can't tell if it's got a computer, or if the logic is deployed in circuits, he doesn't care about freedom. It was interesting that he also said he wouldn't take a pacemaker that wasn't running free software ... I think the answer to the broader question lies largely around the same ideas of transference of risk outlined above. Generally, proprietary software licenses legally absolve the supplier of risk, in which case the purchases must assume that risk (or try to change the terms of the license in court, after the fact). >> I was disappointed in his painting things black or white. He was quite >> harsh on proprietary software developers: they were a single person who >> developed software as a power trip for controlling their users, and >> there is no way to communicate with them (to get features added). >> >> I was a proprietary software developer for the past 13 years, and I >> don't think he got a single thing right. I was part of a team, we did >> it to make money, but also because it was a cool product (J. River >> Media Center), and we had a support forum where we - the developers - >> interacted directly with users, taking ideas and sometimes implementing >> them. I don't believe that harsh and mean were intended at all, though his manner may lead one to believe that. As outlined in the beginning, his talk was about the definition of "free software". Acceptance of the four fundamental freedoms is the beginning of all of the ethical arguments. He even addressed this (obliquely) when asked about 'defensive patents' as being used by Redhat. The concept was that defensive patents are fine, but only if they are written in contract such that they can only be used defensively, in perpetuity. I believe he may describe the J. River Media Center example as an illustration of a benevolent dictatorship. While this is better than a sinister dictatorship, it is still distasteful to his sensibilities. His judgment is on the form of government, not the governors. (again my take on Stallman). >> It was interesting - especially the number of people who raised >> their hands for programming in TECO. >> >> j