> Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions.
I'm not seeing how anyone is being denied profits. This seems focused on the user, and the choices the user should make, rather than the provider of the SaaS and what they ought or ought not to receive. Maybe I missed something?
> Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.
Or you could use local software– Dictionary.app instead of the dictionary on Google. This article barely argues for free software. It's the Parler-AWS issue.
This is a misconception of what Free Software means.
I don't have a source to hand, but if I recall correctly, Stallman used to sell discs containing only Free Software, and made a profit doing so. That's in keeping with Free Software principles, although the Internet has mostly put an end to the practice (with exceptions like Red Hat). Stallman was also paid good money to implement enhancements to the GCC compiler suite.
It's also possible to accept donations for a Free Software project, or to offer to host the software as a paid service, or to charge for support (quite common in the GNU/Linux world, also with LibreOffice). Lastly, you can find a salaried job writing Free Software, such as Linux kernel development.
As someone already pointed out (unfortunately from a throwaway account), Free Software isn't against profit. They're pretty upfront about this. It's true that it can be very challenging to monetize Free Software, but that's an unfortunate harsh reality, not a tenet of the philosophy.
> For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free software application.
> What if there is no free program available? A proprietary program or SaaSS would take away your freedom, so you shouldn't use those. You can contribute your time or your money to development of a free replacement.
Statements like this are why GNU's and the FSF's arguments often fall apart. If someone wants to do something and free software is not available to help them achieve it, telling them to just not do it is not a good solution. Change requires compromise, and its counterproductive to hold such a firm stance.
> If someone wants to do something and free software is not available to help them achieve it, telling them to just not do it is not a good solution.
I would be better served if I quit my music addiction on proprietary YouTube. Some would be better served with a paper todo list than proprietary Google Tasks– which lost several of my todo items. Robinhood's users may have been better served not buying stocks at all. Almost all people are better served turning off proprietary ad software.
My point is– when proprietary software is so much "better", maybe we don't need to "replace" it, because while it has short-term benefits, it has negative consequences lurking beneath.
To directly address your argument, I think we need to come up business models that make free software just as profitable or more profitable than nonfree software.
> Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss.
How so? Emacs isn’t magic. It’s software. It has bugs. Countless things can cause data loss with paper—-rain, sweat, literally losing it, bad handwriting, wear and tear.
> the proprietary algorithms of YouTube are designed to addict me to music
Seems to me the interests of the user and the provider are pretty well aligned here. A good recommendation engine lets the user enjoy more music, and keeps the provider in business. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic here, but addiction isn't a common issue with music streaming. There's a reason it isn't regulated the way online casinos are.
> Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss
Dead trees are not resilient against data loss. They're clumsy to duplicate and are easily lost or destroyed. Emacs is just a text editor. There are plenty of relatively bug-free text editors, both Free and non-Free.
Again though, I support Free Software, but don't see how these examples illustrate issues of power and control.
These are GNU philosophy pages, telling you how you can better live your life free of proprietary software. Of course it's a little lofty.
But there's nothing wing with assuming high. It's really only because some people have told themselves they shouldn't use existing proprietary software that we have GNU and Linux and all the rest.
If you told me about a "freedom diet" where you only eat one thing, I'd laugh. The fact that I can technically choose not to follow the diet any day I want doesn't help.
Of course GNU can't force me to follow the decision they recommend every time, that doesn't change how their recommendations come across.
I agree with the article and am a big FSF GNU/Linux fan, but have to admit that I am ready and willing to pay AWS for RDS because it is so convenient for me. No worries about patching, backups, etc. I can always export the data, too, and load it into my own PostgreSQL server if/when I want to do that.
So while I do agree that free software is superior, not all SaaS is lock-in with evil intentions, and many people are eager to pay for the convenience and scale that it provides.
I’m all for free software, I maintain an open source project under MIT license, but I just don’t see selling proprietary software as some form of fascism, anymore than I do Coca Cola keeping their recipes secret. I mean come on, give me a break. Some of the licensing agreements that have specific restrictions are fine to take issue with, particularly around resalability, and for sure, making what could be a desktop program a cloud subscription is lame, but none of this takes away my freedom.
19 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] thread> Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions.
I'm not seeing how anyone is being denied profits. This seems focused on the user, and the choices the user should make, rather than the provider of the SaaS and what they ought or ought not to receive. Maybe I missed something?
> Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
This is also explained in the article, including a link to the page that defines "free" in this context.
I don't have a source to hand, but if I recall correctly, Stallman used to sell discs containing only Free Software, and made a profit doing so. That's in keeping with Free Software principles, although the Internet has mostly put an end to the practice (with exceptions like Red Hat). Stallman was also paid good money to implement enhancements to the GCC compiler suite.
It's also possible to accept donations for a Free Software project, or to offer to host the software as a paid service, or to charge for support (quite common in the GNU/Linux world, also with LibreOffice). Lastly, you can find a salaried job writing Free Software, such as Linux kernel development.
As someone already pointed out (unfortunately from a throwaway account), Free Software isn't against profit. They're pretty upfront about this. It's true that it can be very challenging to monetize Free Software, but that's an unfortunate harsh reality, not a tenet of the philosophy.
Incidentally this topic turned up yesterday over at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25946073
> For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free software application.
> What if there is no free program available? A proprietary program or SaaSS would take away your freedom, so you shouldn't use those. You can contribute your time or your money to development of a free replacement.
Statements like this are why GNU's and the FSF's arguments often fall apart. If someone wants to do something and free software is not available to help them achieve it, telling them to just not do it is not a good solution. Change requires compromise, and its counterproductive to hold such a firm stance.
I would be better served if I quit my music addiction on proprietary YouTube. Some would be better served with a paper todo list than proprietary Google Tasks– which lost several of my todo items. Robinhood's users may have been better served not buying stocks at all. Almost all people are better served turning off proprietary ad software.
My point is– when proprietary software is so much "better", maybe we don't need to "replace" it, because while it has short-term benefits, it has negative consequences lurking beneath.
To directly address your argument, I think we need to come up business models that make free software just as profitable or more profitable than nonfree software.
> I would be better served if I quit my music addiction on proprietary YouTube.
Would you be better served by a Free Software alternative, or is the issue with your overconsumption of music?
> Some would be better served with a paper todo list than proprietary Google Tasks– which lost several of my todo items.
Data-loss bugs are a serious issue whether or not the software is Free.
> Robinhood's users may have been better served not buying stocks at all.
What does that have to do with it?
The issue is the proprietary algorithms of YouTube are designed to addict me to music, creating an overconsumption of music.
> Data-loss bugs are a serious issue whether or not the software is Free.
Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss.
How so? Emacs isn’t magic. It’s software. It has bugs. Countless things can cause data loss with paper—-rain, sweat, literally losing it, bad handwriting, wear and tear.
Seems to me the interests of the user and the provider are pretty well aligned here. A good recommendation engine lets the user enjoy more music, and keeps the provider in business. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic here, but addiction isn't a common issue with music streaming. There's a reason it isn't regulated the way online casinos are.
> Dead trees and Emacs org-mode are both resilient against data loss
Dead trees are not resilient against data loss. They're clumsy to duplicate and are easily lost or destroyed. Emacs is just a text editor. There are plenty of relatively bug-free text editors, both Free and non-Free.
Again though, I support Free Software, but don't see how these examples illustrate issues of power and control.
These are GNU philosophy pages, telling you how you can better live your life free of proprietary software. Of course it's a little lofty.
But there's nothing wing with assuming high. It's really only because some people have told themselves they shouldn't use existing proprietary software that we have GNU and Linux and all the rest.
"Nothing wrong with aiming high"
Of course GNU can't force me to follow the decision they recommend every time, that doesn't change how their recommendations come across.
2019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21378509
2014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8799127
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1227694
So while I do agree that free software is superior, not all SaaS is lock-in with evil intentions, and many people are eager to pay for the convenience and scale that it provides.