What is Free Software?

[Human Lefts]

I couldn't find a thread on this, so I thought it would be a good idea to introduce the topic.


“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech”, not as in “free beer”.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

http://www.gnu.org/

That being said, what do you have to say about the Free Software movement?

[Quail]

I use a lot of free software and it seems like the best way of pooling ideas. If someone likes a piece of software and wants to play around with it in an attempt to improve it, I say let them because it benefits everyone. The only people that don't benefit from free software are the companies whose profits rely on software being copyrighted and restricted.

[Revoltorb]

I'm in favor of FLOSS programs. I try to use FLOSS programs for pretty much everything on my computer except for some work related software that I need to use because they're the industry standard, unfortunately.

FLOSS programs, I find, are much better than non-free software because they're easier to debug if things go wrong and usually follow the UNIX philosophy of doing one thing and doing it well. Not only that, but if someone thinks they can do it better they're completely free to fork it and add/remove features as they wish.

[MarxSchmarx]

There is actually a stickied thread about these kinds of projects in the websites forum:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/open-source-resource-t129497/index.html

As to the movement as a whole, I wish they would be more left wing about who can use their products. At best, money the capitalists don't have to spend on software goes to hiring "consultants" to crush unions. Although the capitalists have been slow to embrace open source technology. I understand why some people want to keep the enterprise option open, and maximize usage by for-profit entities is a way to see if your idea stands the test. There are actually licenses that seem to do something like this, but still the truly open source is a bigger share of the products. Making a distinction between nonprofits, personal use, etc... and having places giant conglomerates freeloading off of your product is important. Even if they restricted only to companies with more than 50 employees I'd be a bit more sympathetic.

I dunno, I can see why people share their product with anybody including rich people, but that idea that "MY product is SO unique and useful, I don't mind if super-rich corporations use it for free and I make no distinction between them and a curious student" just wreaks of exceptionalism and an atomized, bourgeois attitude.

[Human Lefts]

As to the movement as a whole, I wish they would be more left wing about who can use their products.

I understand your point, bur how would you model free software and restrict whom can use it at the same time? It seems contradictory to me. I feel like this is something that is a constant issue in many aspects of society. How can you be anarchist/communist in a capitalist world? How can you show forgiveness without being and easy target or allowing complete chaos?...

[MarxSchmarx]

I understand your point, bur how would you model free software and restrict whom can use it at the same time? It seems contradictory to me. I feel like this is something that is a constant issue in many aspects of society. How can you be anarchist/communist in a capitalist world? How can you show forgiveness without being and easy target or allowing complete chaos?...

I'm not sure I entirely understand your second point about forgiveness and chaos - maybe you have an example in mind?

As to the restriction on software, as a practical matter, you can use the capitalist system of IP law to see your vision is realized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivismo_Enhanced-Source_Software_License_Agreement

So in the short term there are ways to do this. Some may argue that you are de facto recognizing the legitimacy of the state by doing so. Maybe, but there's a reductio ad absurdum quality to the argument, and I think this should be a realization on the part of leftwing software developers to develop projects that specifically advance the goal of social change so that capitalists would be unlikely to litigate for being able to use the software.

[Human Lefts]

I'm not sure I entirely understand your second point about forgiveness and chaos - maybe you have an example in mind?

As to the restriction on software, as a practical matter, you can use the capitalist system of IP law to see your vision is realized:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivismo_Enhanced-Source_Software_License_Agreement

So in the short term there are ways to do this. Some may argue that you are de facto recognizing the legitimacy of the state by doing so. Maybe, but there's a reductio ad absurdum quality to the argument, and I think this should be a realization on the part of leftwing software developers to develop projects that specifically advance the goal of social change so that capitalists would be unlikely to litigate for being able to use the software.


Hactivismo seems to have good intentions, but I personally have problems with adding policies to address the major concerns. Policies eventually get exploited. For example, Ubuntu functions under an open license, but they announced that in Ubuntu 12.10, the search lens on Unity will also search Amazon. That seems like the beginning of a new trend. Instead of the operating system being the product, it is a means obtaining the new product which is the user and sold to Amazon.

I have to go, but I'll come back and finish my post to address the rest of this later...

[Q]

Hactivismo seems to have good intentions, but I personally have problems with adding policies to address the major concerns. Policies eventually get exploited. For example, Ubuntu functions under an open license, but they announced that in Ubuntu 12.10, the search lens on Unity will also search Amazon. That seems like the beginning of a new trend. Instead of the operating system being the product, it is a means obtaining the new product which is the user and sold to Amazon.

I have to go, but I'll come back and finish my post to address the rest of this later...

It is a way of getting revenue for Canonical, as this article explains (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/online-shopping-features-arrive-in-ubuntu-12-10):


The boon for them is that they get a small % cut from every purchase made through the Dash (or the web-app mentioned yesterday), as Oliver Ries explained on the Ubuntu Development mailing list yesterday:

“…if a user clicks the item and purchases it, it will generate affiliate revenue that we can invest back into the project (in a similar way to how we generate revenue from the Firefox search
bar).

We have found affiliate revenue to be a good method of helping us to continue to invest in maturing and growing Ubuntu.”
Canonical still relies a lot for its funding on Mark Shuttleworth. But this can't last forever, so this is a logical step. Canonical is also offering consumer (http://www.canonical.com/consumer-services), engineering (http://www.canonical.com/engineering-services) and enterprise (http://www.canonical.com/enterprise-services) services (although I doubt they're getting a lot of revenue out of that) and their cloud service, Ubuntu One (https://one.ubuntu.com/services/) also has paid plans beyond the first free 5GB.

[wandnancy91]

Free software is just sharing knowledge and inventions with out commercial intent. It's about about sharing one's invention for others to use it and make their life better even in the smallest of ways.

[ckaihatsu]

While the conventional world is of either automated-manufactured *goods* or people-centric *services*, the interesting thing about software, from its digitized quality, is that it's like the best of both worlds.

The creation of software, from programming, is people-*oriented*, like a service, but massively leverages the automation of active microchip circuitry to effectively "manufacture" the end product -- identical copies -- to each individual user.

In this way the software has only to be made "once" since once it's completed the material costs for supplying it to additional individuals, as over the Internet, is negligible-to-zero.

I put 'once' in quotation marks, though, because the service-side aspect can be pulled to the fore, as where consumer pressure calls for modifications and improvements that necessitate additional service-type labor. Plus the landscape of hardware and software capacities, and societal demands, are always changing, so the realm of software keeps evolving, just as with services in general.

Another unique quality of (free) software is that it can borrow and build on past efforts, like the general store of human knowledge. This is in contrast to conventional manufacturing where one can't just build on top of an existing building, for example, to take advantage of efforts that have already been done.

Because of these material qualities it's easy to see that a software developer might lean towards the generous side of things and decide to be an "artisan to the world", developing their skill and making such service-manifested available to the public at no charge, also freely availing themselves of whatever has been made available by like-minded predecessors and peers.





Yes, the open-source software movement *is* essentially communism in the here-and-now. The hyper-miniaturization of certain goods and services -- digitized ones, that is -- has shown us, to our faces, exactly what communism could look like for the rest of societal production.

Note that the release of the kernel itself is *centralized*, total distribution is effortless and non-discriminatory, and customizations are only limited by one's own ability, with perfectly identical distribution capabilities available to anyone else, as well. Ditto for documentation and user guides, thus giving anyone access to controlling the "means of production" for themselves. (And, today, due to technological advances, the hardware is both commonplace, affordable, and gives *increasing returns* for the money spent.)(I'd say the "tipping point" happened around 2005-2007.)