[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
(fwd) responses to UK writer
Interesting. Needless to say, this is unadulterated RMS/GNU-ism, and
I'm whole-heartedly for it.
Time for another flame-war, folks? Fortunately I'm out of station
till the 3rd of Jan, so I'll bask in the glowing embers when I get
back.
-- Raju
From: Tony Stanco <tonstanco@xxxxxxx>
To: FreeDevelopers@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: responses to UK writer
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 04:50:07 -0800
Here are some responses from me, Arun and Dan to questions from a UK
political writer who is writing an article on FD.
I think it sets the tone for what we are trying to do here and what we are
about.
If you want to discuss it, don't do it on the main list. Do it at
FD-Philosophy (linked from our site).
++++++++++
> 2) What are the main ways in which technology could "enslave the world"
> (from your FAQs) if their model wins over free software?
Software is the law that machines obey. And machines will define more and
more how people interact with each other in cyberspace and real space.
Without being careful about how those machines are implemented and where, and
who gets to write the software those machines will obey, the world can quite
literally be enslaved by cyber-chains.
We are about to enter an age that would have thrilled all the dictators of
the past. An age where machines can be a totally obedient, non human, police
force allowing absolute control over the movement and interaction of every
individual.
Just today I was reading an article in the latest edition of MIT's Technology
that talked about "hybrid brain-machine interfaces." Now granted it referred
to how some are trying to develop interfaces that allow the brain to directly
control machines. But how far are we from a hybrid machine-brain interfaces
where the causation goes the other way?
Since proprietary software is by definition unseen code not subject to
scrutiny by the public, it gives too much power to a few, unelected
businessmen, mostly from the U.S. Looking back on human history, nightmarish
scenarios cannot to hard to imagine.
> 1) Briefly, why do you go so far as to dub proprietary software companies
> "evil" and "the enemy"?
They are potentially evil for the reasons above. They are our enemy because
our mission as free developers is to stop that world from being a reality.
The goal of proprietary companies is to make that goal a reality, wittingly
or unwittingly.
Also, I see free software as a continuation of the ancient struggle for
equality, democracy and freedom that goes back to the first moment of human
group consciousness. Those ideals have won out in the political sphere after
6000 years, and now the struggle continues in the commercial and economic
sphere. Since software is a new form of law, the analogy is all the stronger.
3) What have been the biggest problems in getting FreeDevelopers to this
> current stage?
Finding and gathering up the true believers. Richard Stallman, the
philosopher and originator of free software, has evangelized free software
for 16 years around the world. We are now trying to call up those troops from
around the world, but the developers, whose hearts he has touched, are
dispersed far and wide worldwide and there isn't a phone directory listing
them under free software developers. So it is a grass roots, word of mouth
effort to put out the word that it is time to act.
> What do you envisage being the biggest problems it will face
> in the future?
When we hit the radar screens of proprietary they will come at us with full
force. They know only one software development paradigm can exist: either it
is a closed code one or a free software one, because at their core they are
antithetical. Since their current power over the developers comes from
dividing developers and keeping the code secret, they know they have to
discredit us or lose all their power. Since there are hundreds of billions of
dollars, plus immense personal empires, at stake, we are expecting an
incredible campaign against us.
> What are the more difficult decisions you are debating
> between yourselves at the moment (I've read about the debate over when to
> release the first version of the democracy software)?
Who really is a free software developer. Some, who claim to be, don't
understand the animating spirit of free software. So some think they can be a
free software developer and can still keep some of their code secret. Open
source has added to this confusion, because they allow proprietary layers to
be shipped with free software. So more people want to join us than really
should and we really don't have a ready way to look into someone's heart to
see what they really think as soon as they join. This has created some lively
debates.
Also, it is becoming apparent that there is a generation gap. People who have
worked during the proprietary age, find it hard to conceptualize how free
software can work and cling to old metaphors. Students coming out of computer
science classes, however, have only been working on free software and
understand it implicitly.
> 4) Please could you give me a bit more information about the 450 (or is it
> more now?) developers who have joined FreeDevelopers. They're from all over
> the world, but what sort of people are they?
>From last count they are 25 countries. [Arun can you list them?]
> Are they highly experienced developers with a long-term commitment to free
> software?
Most are computer science and/or computer engineering students. Some have
been working on free software for years. Others are working at proprietary
companies and work with us at night when they get home.
> Any specific age band?
Mostly in their twenty is my guess.
> Have most of them worked for proprietary companies in the past - and
> if so, how do most of them make their living at the moment?
The ones who are not students are mostly working at proprietary companies,
because there aren't many alternatives available for paying jobs in free
software.
> Is everyone who wants to join allowed to, or have you turned anyone down at
this
> early stage?
We allow everyone in and if they show that they don't understand free
software methodologies and are unwilling to learn, we ask them to leave.
> Do you all tend to have similar political views, or is there a broad
> mixture? How have they heard about the company?
We are technologists from all religions and political views. The unifying
theme is a belief in free software and the harm of proprietary.
> 5) Would it be fair to describe the free software movement as a "resistance
> movement"?
In that proprietary software is the oppressive current regime that we are
trying to overthrow, yes. But we are non violent. Our war is a philosophical
war over the hearts and minds of developers, showing them that by joining
together there is a better way. A way that gives them more power and allows
them to protect the world from cyber-chains.
> What are the similarities and differences between it and Trade Unionism?
This is a great question, because it goes to the heart of the matter. We are
unlike a trade union because unlike traditional industrial companies,
software companies have no physical assets. In traditional industrial
companies, the power flows from the fact that the companies own the assets
that workers have to use to do their jobs. So employees have to unite to have
an equal power base to negotiate with the power base inherent in the owners
of the assets.
But now think of software companies. Where are the assets giving the
companies the power over the developers? There isn't any. If the developers
unite, they have the power and there is no countervailing power base on the
other side.
So do you see what I mean? In traditional companies, workers unite to have a
countervailing power. But if software developers unite, they are the only
ones with the power. It is a fundamental difference. That is the reason, by
the way, that I think that it doesn't matter how much money and effort
proprietary software arrays against us. If we can persuade the developers to
unite, we win.
> Would you say it has anything in common with the anti-capitalist
> (Seattle, WTO etc etc) movement?
No, we are not anti-capitalism. Free markets is just another freedom of a
free people in our view. Capitalism has historically been the greatest
leveler, because it produces more for everyone to consume. The question has
only really been one of equitable distribution of the production. And
capitalism has been working itself pure on that front, too. In its quest to
be ever more efficient, capitalism has targeted the middle class for the
production, which obviously gets a lot of production to the greatest number
of people.
But an interesting thing has started to happen in the last couple of decades.
The ownership of the means of production has also been becoming much more
egalitarian, because the middle class has been buying stock in the companies
that are producing the goods in record numbers.
There are some problems of corporate concentration by ever growing mergers,
but appropriate government regulation can keep the size of corporations under
control, if the political will materializes.
> 6) Please could you expand a little on the ways you see companies selling
> and distributing Open Source software as becoming "exploitative"? Is this a
> commonly held view among developers?
We view open source companies as allies. They also want to change the
software development paradigm to a free software one. We don't want to make
too much of the differences because we are on the same side of this
philosophical war.
But the biggest difference between us and them is over who gets to share in
the wealth. They have a more traditional model where those at the top of
those organizations reap most of the rewards, and rely on the unpaid work of
thousands of free software developers who volunteer their effort for the sake
of their free software ideals.
> 7) Why do you think you can successfully build a democratic company when
> it's such a difficult thing to do efficiently?
Democracy is not necessarily about efficiency. It is about safeguards from
abuse of the powerful. How you get to democracy usually, and in this case in
particular, is that you back into it, after you have tried everything else
and nothing else works. I think that explains political history for the last
6000 years very nicely. My prognosis for software democracy works on a
similar logic of elimination.
Traditionally, companies were allowed to be monarchical, because market
competition acts as the control mechanism on the appetites of any one CEO.
But in monopoly situations, say electricity or local phone service, market
controls break down, so that another control system was needed to control
potential abuse. Historically that was government regulation. In fact, the
Microsoft anti-trust trial tried to use that same control mechanism recently.
But high tech is unlikely to be controlled by government regulation, because
it is a moving target. It is the exact dilemma that the Microsoft court was
struggling with: how do you control the abuse while not stifling innovation
in such a fast moving field run by technical experts?
Direct government regulation is not going to work in this case, because
unlike traditional monopolies there aren't the physical assets to regulate.
There are only the experts, and government officials are ill-equipped to
regulate them because of their superior specialized knowledge.
Regulation of technical experts is usually conducted by self-regulatory
organizations (SRO's). Examples of these are the state bar associations,
medical associations, or stock broker associations, and they work generally
pretty well in those areas. But they have generally failed in software. The
reason is that in those other organizations the members can compete against
each other, whereas software monopolizes.
So after surveying all the traditions mechanisms of control and realizing
they fall short, you are left with democracy.
> How convinced are you that it will work?
It has to, because the alternative is unthinkable.
> 8) Would you say that some of the principles of free software could be
> applied to research and development in any other fields (Aids research
> springs to mind)? What is it that makes software so different that this
> whole movement has developed?
I haven't looked into it in other areas. My sense is that other areas are
functioning pretty well with the existing structures. But that doesn't mean
we shouldn't take a second look at our old infrastructures every 50 or so
years to see if we they haven't fallen into disrepair and we are just
perpetuating them because they are comfortable habits.
I would still venture to say, however, that the Internet is going to allow
more democracy overall in R&D and elsewhere, because it allows for
communications efficiencies not previously available. But in those other
areas, change will probably be evolutionary, not revolutionary with
accompanying paradigm changes.
Software in an interconnected world is like law and so there must be a new
infrastructure in place to protect the world from the cyber-chains. It is
probably a special situation.
++++++++++++++
Arun from India
Questions for developers:
1) Please give a potted professional history...
I am Engg student and interested in social implication of
software(Technology Choice). Technology for people.
2) Did you at some point "convert" to the idea of free software? If so, what
was it that convinced you?
I think convert is not a correct word for my case. I am from Kerala a
state in India(If you have read articles by Nobel prize winner Amrtya Sen
you would have learned about this place). Internet became popular here
in last few years. I didnt know about Free Software Movement when I entered
the field of computers. When I learned about it I joined it. It was the
natural place for me.
3) Have you worked for a proprietary company in the past - if so, did you
leave, and when and why did you decide to leave?
I have an offer to join one of the largest software company India.
But I cant. I have been advocating for free software. It is not possible for
me to cheat myself.
4) What are the ways in which developers become disenfranchised if working
for proprietary companies - please could you give a few examples of the
things you have personally found most frustrating?
I didnt get the question.
5) Is it fair to say that most developers are frustrated with the
proprietary model, even if they chose to work for proprietary companies?
Most dont care.
- Are there many developers who think the proprietary model is a good thing
per
se? If so, why do they think that?
Yes there are. Mostly all of them dream of becoming Bill soon.
Its just a matter of social conditioning.
6) Have you made any personal sacrifices (money, time, prestige etc) for
your free software principles?
See above..
Money some time..
Time usually.
Prestige depends on the way we look at it. I believe non can hurt
my prestige till I do something which is self defeating can creating a
conflict
in me. It can happen if I join a proprietary software company.
7) How did you hear about FreeDevelopers, what influenced you in your
decision to join, and what are your hopes for the company?
I didnt wanted to join proprietary software companies. There was none
here to give me employment in free software. So with my friends I thought of
making one of our own. During that time I came to know about FD.
For me there was noting against joining FD.
FD is the need of time. It must succeed.
Arun
++++++++++++++
Dan from USA
1. Please give a potted professional history...
Currently, I am a Senior Computer Engineering student at Milwaukee
School of Engineering (MSOE http://www.msoe.edu). This my 5th year.
Currently I work for the MSOE TRIO Programs on campus developing
free software for all TRIO programs
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/trioweb).
I used to work for L.S. Research Inc. doing embedded systems programming
which was proprietary software.
2. Did you at some point "convert" to the idea of free software? If
so, what was it that convinced you?
Yes, I had been using GNU/Linux systems for a while and never really
understood any of the philosophy behind Free or Open Source software
until I looked I took a course in ethics. In that course I decided
I wanted to write a position paper on the ethics of free software.
It is then I started to realize what free software was all about
and the differences between that and open source (which was the
buzz word at the time). Since then I have taken other philosophy
based courses and have written a lot more on Free software. Eventually,
I am going to put these essays up on the web.
The thing that convinced me was that it just seemed that free software
was the way things "ought" to be. I was drawn to it's sense of community,
cooperation, and sharing. I myself have never fit much into the
corporate world. I enjoy doing things and pursuing things that help
other people. Money is not as important to me as freedom and making
a difference in other people's lives and the world.
3. Have you worked for a proprietary company in the past - if so, did
you leave, and when and why did you decide to leave?
Yes, I worked for L.S. Research for about 4 months or so and then
after some soul searching and the exposure to Free Software Philosophy
I was getting from reading RMS, I decided it was not for me. I did
not want to be involved in something I did not whole heartedly believe
in.
4. What are the ways in which developers become disenfranchised if working
for proprietary companies - please could you give a few examples
of the things you have personally found most frustrating?
Developers become disenfranchised in a number of ways. When you write
some software and you are really excited about it then somebody
asks you, "Hey can I use it" and you have to tell them no it very
heart breaking. You see how your program could've made an impact
in their lives and you feel resentment and shame. This a huge red
flag for me. What's wrong with this picture?
5. Is it fair to say that most developers are frustrated with the proprietary
model, even if they chose to work for proprietary companies? Are
there many developers who think the proprietary model is a good
thing per se? If so, why do they think that?
I am not sure how many people are frustrated by it. Some developers
are only doing it for the money so they don't care if the code is
free or not. I, on the other hand, am driven by other things such
as freedom, sharing, cooperation. I do not want to look back on
my life and feel that I haven't made a difference in this world.
I think that free software is a great and noble way for me to do
just that. More importantly, it is the right way.
6. Have you made any personal sacrifices (money, time, prestige etc)
for your free software principles?
I am making sacrifices right now. I know I could go somewhere and
make a rediculous amount of money, but I know this would not make
me happy. I will be a lot happier fighting for something that I
believe in. Doing something that I feel is worth while. I have made
a conscious decision to not compromise on my beliefs no matter what.
Even if some company offers me the world.
7. How did you hear about FreeDevelopers, what influenced you in your
decision to join, and what are your hopes for the company?
I found freedevelopers from the link on the GNU home page. The one
thing that I liked about FreeDevelopers was that there is actually
a potential for being able to make a living developing free software,
doing something that I believe and that would make me happy. It
is a dream come true.
We will make this dream a reality, consequently changing the world
forever.
Dan
--
Raju Mathur raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://kandalaya.org/