I've always had mixed feelings about the Open Source movement because while my feelings suggest that this is surely a great innovation in software development, there are other (many) things that I don't agree with. Nevertheless, I've been contributing to free software (or open source) since 1996 and I'm still doing it. Nothing famous or that you might have heard of, though. But enough that I feel I have some insight on the subject.Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
(Please excuse my English as that's not my mother language.)
From time to time I get the feeling I should express my opinion about the whole Open Source / Free Software movement -- Linux and all that stuff -- and I've finally got around to doing that. The spark was yet another Richard Stallman interview you can read here. I have mixed feelings about Stallman too, though I don't know everything he has said or written. I'm mostly conflicted because of a few interviews I have read. What it comes down to is that though I don't agree with many things he has said, since he has contributed to start and make this movement grow, I'm reluctant to say unequivocally that he was (or is) wrong.
The first thing I don't understand about Stallman's ideology (or philosophy) is the very concept of free software he expresses (you can read about it in that interview). Now, I can say I’m truly against any Intellectual Property concept (though I think a wise use of IP can contribute to destroy IP itself) but I really don’t understand why Stallman keeps on talking about freedom about software only. I could argue that removing that barrier from pharmaceutical drugs and medicines could let people innovate in that field too yet I didn’t read (and I mean read) anything about the whole IP concept. The only thing which deserves to have relaxed IP application is software, according to what I read. He calls for freedom about using / distributing / modifying software where the word freedom sells the concept to the masses but after 10 years of application a summary of achievements should be done. As he states “our work is establishing freedom, not selling”.
Yet many questions still wait for answers. A decade of GPL can be analyzed for results it brought and I think the GPL itself (which is the weapon of free software concept) is harming the whole open source / free software movement, not to mention that GPL is helping big companies (the ones we all hate) to become more powerful and to wipe out small companies. Worst fact is those small companies aren’t getting killed, they’re just committing suicide. Yet, advocates of free software are deliberately ignoring all this and staying silent on (I don’t want to say “hiding”) certain facts about this movement and that cannot be considered a good will practice.
How you will promote a widespread use of a system for which “home” is different than “hOmE” is still an open question no one is talking about. When a few users getting excited about all the noise we heard tried to install Linux, first question they ask me is “But why is there this case-sensitive thing?”. This is just crazy but, to be nice, I use to reply is “Because it is this way”. Nevertheless, it is just crazy, even if people are standardizing about clicking on a file rather than on typing its name. This is just a little example of weird things surrounding the whole happy picture.
Second thing is killing this platform is so called freedom to modify and redistribute (or even sell!) software. This is another crazy thing I can’t really understand and it causing at least two big damages:
1) it is spreading confusion, favoring splitting of user groups and lowering innovation possibilities;
2) it is helping big companies.
Just think about Linux itself. Great software, you would argue. But even if most companies are selling the word Linux, it isn’t so easy to cope with all those “distributions”, as they call it. While they claim to be Linux, most of them are quote compatible with each other and, even if it is not a complete incompatibility, there’s enough to require a novice user to give up and ask for help. Not to mention that your favorite hardware might work with a “Linux” and might not work with another “Linux”. Most “Linuxes” have their own way to install software, patches and so on. And list could go on and on. Not to mention the fact that many “Linuxes” get sold or you have to pay for applications, or you have to pay for patches or you have to pay for something else you might need. Why should someone pay for a “free Linux” just a few bucks less than he or she would do for Windows, but with Windows would have software for free, patches for free, help for free and so on?
- "Stallman, Page 1/2"
- "Stallman, Page 2/2"
