Tim O'Reilly Responds to "Freedom or Power?"
by Tim O'Reilly08/15/2001
Editor's note: Bradley Kuhn and Richard Stallman recently published, Freedom or Power?, which was a response to Tim O'Reilly's weblog, My Definition of "Freedom Zero". There were a few issues raised in Freedom or Power? that Tim wanted to clarify or expand on, and he attempts to do so in this article.
Bradley clearly misunderstands my article and my argument. First off, if you accept his definition of freedom as "being able to make decisions that affect mainly you" versus power as "being able to make decisions that affect others more than you", then clearly the GPL is just as much about "power" as any Microsoft license, since it is binding on all who use the software.
Second, I did not say that "Microsoft has put its past behind it." What I said was that the market conditions that allowed Microsoft to act in such an abusive way have passed their peak, and that history is on our side in making them act in a more open way. It is really important not to make distorted distinctions based on temporary conditions, such as Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position.
I want to be clear that I am in no way attacking the free software vision, which Bradley articulates so very well. I completely agree that a community of users who share software is a far better and more productive environment than one in which they are captive to vendors, especially if those vendors are doing things that are bad for users in order to maintain their competitive position.
Related Links Shared Source vs. Open Source: Craig Mundie and Michael Tiemann | |
| |
But I believe that Bradley goes too far when he identifies any proprietary software as "harming users by denying their freedom." It's ironic that in defending the GPL against Microsoft's distorted claims that the GPL will "infect" other software, free software advocates point out that you are only bound by the GPL if you choose to use the software. Well, you are only bound by proprietary software if you choose to use it.
I believe that free software and open source are really a "better mousetrap" for all the practical reasons that Bradley outlines in his article. We need forceful licenses like the GPL because everyone doesn't realize that yet, and so it's a defensive move against proprietary vendors who treat harm to their users as "collateral damage" in wars against their competitors. Over time, I believe that the benefits of open source will become so evident that counter-productive activity by proprietary software developers will abate.
Regarding the question of code as law--this is a powerful argument. I agree completely that software is increasingly influential in all of our lives, and that making sure that users have the power to understand and change the software is absolutely essential if power isn't to be concentrated into the hands of a few. I can't deny that large corporations with self-serving agendas are chipping away at our basic freedoms in many different ways. But I don't believe that gives us license to take away their freedom in exchange.
I want to return to the idea of freedom zero as my choice as a creator to give, or not to give, the fruits of my work to you, as a "user" of that work, and for you, as a user, to accept or reject the terms I place on that gift. If that is power, so be it. Both Richard Stallman and Bill Gates exercise the very same power every time they release a piece of software. But the burden of power is to use it wisely and well.
Freedom is power, and those who use their power to reduce the freedom of others are not using it well. But if we take away the power of choice, and force people to release their work on terms not of their choosing, we do an even greater harm than someone does by offering their work on onerous terms that no one is forced to accept.

You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 16 of 16.
-
RMS Geek Cruises Wireless Device Driver Debate
2001-12-29 10:36:30 dunhamb [Reply | View]
During LINUX Lunacy, a Geek Cruise offered last October, I met RMS aboard the Holland America Maasdam. My team was Beta testing an 802.11b CISCO wireless LAN so that network services could be provided across various decks to numerous seminar rooms. My company, MOUStech.NET, LLC had arranged for a CISCO wireless partner, Excalibur, to provide the wireless access points and wireless cards at no cost to the Linux Lunacy attendees for the seven day cruise, about $12,000 worth of equipment. (In January MOUStech.NET, LLC is providing a CISCO and 3COM 802.11b wireless Internet Beta at the Geek Cruises PERL Whirl aboard the Veendam.) Although the device drivers offered by CISCO for the wireless cards on CDROM, as well as the wireless card itself, was offered to Stahlman at no cost, the device driver was not open source or even compliant with the Four Freedoms, and therefore not "free." The CISCO wireless Linux device driver did work with numerous versions of LINUX, but RMS made a point of mentioning (flogging) the device driver issue in his public talks during the cruise, putting it in the context of the almost famous printer driver issue that launched him on his quest for the holy grail of free software many years ago. I agree with RMS that CISCO should offer open source device drivers for those who need them, and free software device drivers for those that need them. CISCO has more control over its hardware and software than technicians in the field however, when market share motivates them, the drivers will be offered, or until someone gifted like RMS can write one. That would not be myself or my technical staff, however. Sorry. I would therefore like to publically apologize to Richard for making light of his St. IGNUtious comedy routine during the cruise, and saying that he should update the character to be "Usama Bin LINUX," founder of the perfect GNU state (or at least a tropical island dictatorship). It was a poor joke at his expense, and not all that humorous in retrospect. It demonstrated a lack of altruistic compassion on my part to make such a joke at his expense. I would like to therefore make it up to him by offering to buy tickets for him to see "A Beautiful Mind." My wife recently read the novel about Nash, and now I feel so bad about making this comment about RMS. Stahlman is a very brillant person.
-
Copywrong
2001-12-01 02:09:07 cogito [Reply | View]
The whole concept of intellectual property is based on a fallacy. That fallacy is the belief that when a person creates something, he or she is the sole source of its creation. Poppycock.
Let's say I write a Java applet. Did I invent Java? Did I create the hardware it will run on? Did I invent computers? Did I invent language?
All creation is built upon layers and layers of previous creations. My parents raised me, fed me, taught me. My teachers and peers taught me. Every day thousands of people go to work so that I may have electricity to run my computer, heat, water, food, clothing, and all the other things I need to live.
When I create something -- anything -- my involvement in its creation is less than 1%. The rest comes from the efforts of a great many others who have helped me throughout life, usually without recompense. That is how society works. We all help each other.
In recent times, we've become enamored with the idea that there is such a thing as private property. What's more, we've taken this illusion to an extreme: most of us now believe that a single human being has a RIGHT to UNLIMITED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. Unlimited. In other words, if Bill Gates finally succeeds in his quest to own everything in the world, that would be perfectly fine with most of us. We could all pay rent to Bill for allowing us to go on living.
It's insanity, but it is the orthodox view these days, so most people can't recognize how insane it is (or how unbelievably arrogant).
There are millions of people dying of AIDS around the world because they can't afford the drugs they need to survive. In a sane world, we would GIVE them the drugs. Free. But not only do we not give them the drugs, our government enforces "property rights" that insist that the dying must pay exorbitant fees for them. If they can't pay, well, better luck next lifetime.
Has it not occurred to anyone yet that capitalism is just a new face for feudalism? In days of old, the aristocracy owned the land -- the means of production -- and landless peasants did the work. Then the aristocracy taxed them by taking a cut of the wealth they created. These taxes were seen as the aristocracy's right for "owning" the land.
Now the aristocracy owns the factories and the businesses. The unpropertied peasants (that's most of us) do the work, and the aristocracy skims as much off the top as they think they can get away with. Is this not a tax on our labors?
We live in a world where more than 800 million people face starvation daily, while a handful live lives of unparalleled luxury. At the root of this grotesque injustice is the so-called "right" to property.
The purpose of the GPL is not to control the rights of those who use the software. The users are assumed to be interested in the software for its own sake. The purpose of the GPL is to protect the software's users -- not its creators -- from the theft of that software by capitalists bent on doing what capitalists do: stealing the work of others and keeping it for themselves.
To compare this to Microsoft's use of IP "rights" to crush competition and generate enormous profits for itself is like saying the murderer and the doctor are really one and the same -- after all, they both deal in life and death. Such a comparison is obscene. I expected better from Tim O'Reilly.
-
Stallman's Vision: Less Freedom
2001-11-23 12:45:22 earlh1 [Reply | View]
Essentially stallman says that freedom and power are a
dichotomy. Power is defined as control over others; freedom is defined as
control over one's self. You can't have both says stallman. Continuing -
the power to choose the license of the software you write is oppressive
to other people's freedom. Therefore that power must be taken away from
you. Only stallman's interpretation of what is "freedom" will be allowed
to stand. We will only be free when we conform to the leaders view of
the community.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
The ends justify the means: Only those with the proper vision of
freedom?, the proper foresight?, the proper world-view?, enough
intelligence?, the purest motives?, are capable of determining FOR US
the license we must use. And Stallman would curtail our freedom to
choose by substituting his vision of what ought to be for what must
be. Stallman has taken his categorical imperative - we ought to use the GPL
- and turned it into an irreducible moral injunction - we must use the
GPL.
Sounds like a pure definition of fundamentalist fascism.
Notwithstanding that the GPL makes huge utilitarian (read economic)
assumptions about the means to deliver the greatest amount of personal
freedom through software to end users. Stallman, in the GPL, presumably
requires that all closed source software that links to GPL software must
in turn be GPL'd. The presumptive policy behind this move it to build a
community of GPL'd software that reaches critical mass, becoming the de
facto standard in the marketplace thereby eroding ūthe ability of
alternatively licensed software to compete. Effectively, the vision of
the FSF is a world of commititized software. Stallman uses the power of
the state through copyright and his own intentionally obfuscated agenda
to bring about this future.
In this process Stallman is using HIS power to erode the fundamental
rights of others. First and foremost is the fundamental freedom to
publish what we want, when we want, in the manner that we want.
Stallman already uses the GPL to curtail that freedom. He advocates
censorship when it suits his agenda.
Nominally, Stallman is attempting to erode a supreme court
recognized fundamental right - the right to a pursue a living. If your
calling is software development and your personal pursuit of happiness
involves getting paid for your work; and if you use existing copyright
laws - LIKE STALLMAN - to leverage your ability - your power to be paid;
then watch out! Stallman's world has no place for you.
Stallman is using the power of the state in an attempt to curtail
your fundamental freedoms. Like a terrorist he is employing the
resources of the very institution he hates most - the Library of
Congress office of Copyrights - to curtail your ability to speak.
The GPL ultimately derives its power from the state. It's power
emanates from copyright law and from the ability of the executive
branch of the United States of America to use force to abridge your
fundamental rights. Stallman uses the very laws he denigrates as tools
to superimpose his world view on you.
If we take as a given the Stallman assumption that users have no power
to choose their software, then Stallman's imposed world is much worse for
everyone. Now, reasoning from Stallman's presumptions, neither the
developer nor the user is free.
In a liberal democracy free-market environment the only restriction on
your ability to license software should flow from your measured
potential to distort the market place to your advantage. Any other
restriction should be rejected on its face and then closely examined
to discover who's quest for power lies at its root.
-
Stallman's Vision: Less Freedom
2001-12-29 10:43:39 dunhamb [Reply | View]
I have met Mac fascists before, who are so anti-Windows that being in the same room is unbearable. But exposure to Open Source and Free Software "Fundamentalism" at a recent conference led me to make a very bad joke about Stahlman's comedy character St. IGNUtious: I thought he should update it to Usama Bin LINUX, a very bad reference to a fundamentalist Islamic state where you get beaten for violating the purist code of ethics. I am very sorry that I made this reference to RMS and I wish to apologize. He does not deserve the juxtapostion, even in a humorous context. He is a beautiful mind.
-
User's can't always choose the software they use
2001-08-23 07:24:41 fredsmoothie [Reply | View]
How can I choose to use a different operating system in my cellphone?
Say I discover that the software that controls my cell phone causes the processor to run at a frequency which has just been discovered (in one isolated, peer-reviewed scientific journal) to cause brain cancer. Other studies, which the manufacturer points to, seem to refute this idea, but being a lay science enthusiast, I believe the methodology and conclusions of the more recent study to be sound.
I do not want brain cancer. I did not choose to purchase the software which now threatens to give me brain cancer. The manufacturer doesn't believe (or doesn't care) about my wants with regard to cancer and their phone. I have the technical ability, if provided with source code, to patch the software to run the phone at a not-harmful clock speed. Being a kind person, I also am willing to redistribute my modifications at my own cost. But I can't.
I could choose to buy a new phone, but how will I know whether or not the software in that phone will similarly give me cancer? And why should I have to buy a new phone when I already paid my hard-earned money for the first one?
My point, if it's not already obvious, is that not all software is (and possibly in this embedded age, most is not) software purchased or downloaded by a person for use on a general purpose computer. And even of the software in that particular category, how many of the users of that software, if we were applying the same standard as for medical decisions, would we consider to be "informed" as to their options and the potential risks associated with each of them?
I think that while, as a software developer, Tim's argument has some selfish appeal, it's not really representative of the world we live in where most software is not some "work of art" produced by a talented individual which I can easily do without or replace. In that world, I think that moral choice between our selfish desires as individual developers (however rational an apparently benign) and the general good of people in general favors the FSF's position for all but the most "non-essential" software.
-
FSF vision passes flurbage test
2001-08-23 01:01:00 broom [Reply | View]
In his recent article "Who Threatens Your Flurbage", ESR states ... "I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take my life, my
physical property, or my time without my consent. " He then goes on to say that his flerbage would be reduced if the FSF was able to get a law passed which made offering
proprietary licences punishable by jail time or death!
I have tremendous respect for ESR, but this is truely an absurd distortion of the FSF's position. Their goal is more to reduce the scope of copyright law for artistic works (e.g.,
novels, poems, and music), and to role back copyright restrictions completely for functional works (i.e., works valued because they help people get some job done) such as
recepies, manuals, software, and reference materials. Under the FSF's vision, proprietarty licence agreements simply would not be enforcable in a court of law, but nobody's
life, physical property, or time would be taken without their consent.
The important question is whether the law should restrict the general public from modifying and redistributing published functional works (note: for most artistic works, only
noncomercial verbatim copying would be permited). How you answer this question depends on whether or not you think this activity benefeits society overall.
broom
-
Microsoft and changing its way ? forget it !!
2001-08-21 21:42:56 GerardM [Reply | View]
By killing off the competition like Real and Apple re plug ins, only the Microsoft formats are left. If this is not flagrant abuse of power what is ??
When companies behave in this way and apparantly get away with it, the argument against software patenting and against proprietary software is all the more compelling.
-
how about freedom -1
2001-08-17 07:47:25 aftrbrnr2000 [Reply | View]
While we're at it, let's also add freedom -1. That would be my right to choose between creating or not creating a piece of software. As a matter of fact I'm excercising that right right now. I have an idea of a tool. I don't know if I want to spend that time writing it -- freedom -1.
To use computers or not at all -- freedom -2. Why in todays work environment do i have to use computers? My freedom to choose between using and not using computers has been taken away.
We could go on and on...
I am starting to lose interest in this whole debate about 'to GPL or not to GPL.' (And that's not a question. Ask any linguist.) Everybody seems to be getting into this pissing contest about which is better. And why the others suck.
Let the market decide. Why does everyone insist on being a typical pundit? If everyone is feeling this urge because of the need to explain everything to the 'common masses', well I guess I'm not in the common masses. And right there you have taken away my freedom (freedom -3) to not be segragated.
I guess discussion is good. But this is starting to look more and more like -- i've said it before -- a pissing contest. But then I wouldn't want to mess with your 'Freedom -4' -- the right to piss. -
how about freedom -1
2001-08-22 10:15:14 gbisaga1 [Reply | View]
It doesn't sound like you don't take a position - it sounds to me like your position is clear. It appears that you agree with the O'Reilly position. Doesn't he basically say what you say: "'To GPL or not to GPL', let the market decide?"
I agree with you. I fear control by some "benevolent" entity -- whether the government, the FSF, whoever -- as much as by Microsoft. Control is still control.
-
Copyrights are not really rights
2001-08-16 14:01:27 okay [Reply | View]
In his article, Tim O'Reilly states ...
First off, if you accept his definition of freedom as "being able to make decisions that affect mainly you" versus power as "being able to make decisions that affect others more than you", then clearly the GPL is just as much about "power" as any Microsoft license, since it is binding on all who use the software, and has the explicit goal of "world domination."
... but this already inherently makes the assumption that copyrights (on software, at least) are basic rights. If you believe that, then the GPL is just another license where a creator is exercising a right that is basically his, but if you don't, like many of us, then the GPL is merely a defensive mechanism to deal with the problems caused by copyrights to begin with.
So the question is, are copyrights really a basic right, the following point suggests that they are....
I want to return to the idea of freedom zero as my choice as a creator to give, or not to give, the fruits of my work to you, as a "user" of that work, and for you, as a user, to accept or reject the terms I place on that gift. If that is power, so be it. Both Richard Stallman and Bill Gates exercise the very same power every time they release a piece of software. But the burden of power is to use it wisely and well
...however, this misses the real point. Nobody has denied that a creator has a right to give or not to give. And nobody has even denied that he can give what he wishes on his terms, but this is not what happens. When an author gives something today, everybody is automatically bound to his terms whether they accept them or not. Even when the cat's out of the bag - they are bound, even if they receive it 2nd hand or 3rd party, or in alternate form - they are bound.
Can I send you a letter with $100 in it and a note that binds you to pay me back $200 tomorrow? Of course not, and it should not be done with software either. Perhaps a copyright may have been more convenient way for creators to enter into bindings in years past, but the cost to make this happen today will require severe micro-regulation in every aspect of the information age. Our society simply can not afford it anymore, or accept it. It is not a matter if they should find a better way, they half to because they are imposing an inherently flawed collection structure on us - not the other way around. Many people, like programmers (and soon to become everyone), can simply not accept the burden of this method any more.
-
Copyrights are not really rights
2001-08-20 17:08:21 guyberliner [Reply | View]
You're precisely right, and this explains
precisely why Tim O'Reilly abuses language
to refer to a "freedom of an author to
decide his licensing terms." In fact, such
a freedom is impossible. Ever heard of "void
where prohibited by law"? Licenses are contracts
meant to enforce certain exclusive rights as
secured by copyright & patent laws. Such rights
exist ONLY where secured by these laws.
For what purpose do such laws exist? The US
Constitution makes it very clear, "for the
advancement of the useful arts and sciences,"
"Congress shall have the power to secure for
authors exlusive rights to their works FOR A
LIMITED TIME." There are many differences
between ordinary property rights and the
misnamed "intellectual property rights."
First and foremost, the latter do not preexist.
They exist only at the pleasure of the legislature
and elected officials. Clearly, they exist only
to benefit the public, not the small minority
of people who actually directly earn royalties
as a result of them. Why on earth would the
majority of people direct their representatives
to pass laws guaranteeing big profits to a small minority at THEIR expense, simply because of some fictive "right" that a small, self-interested minority might want to demand?
The idea is that, by enjoying these monopoly
rights, talented authors will be encouraged to
devote more time to their work, and to make it
widely available to the public. This serves
"the advancement of the useful arts and sciences,"
and therefore the interests of the general public
(in theory, at any rate, and only so long as
corrupt influence peddling and monstrosities like
the DMCA don't overtake us, as they already have.)
Unlike ordinary property rights, no one anticipates that any more than a small minority of people could ever in practice exercise such "intellectual" rights. Many people do commendable intellectual work in the course of carrying out many worthy trades -- carpenters, plumbers, etc. But they do not enjoy the privilege of "intellectual property rights."
This is why the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to recognize such rights. But they did not mandate it. And they clearly described the purpose such "rights." And that purpose has nothing to do with those who exercise them themselves. -
Copyrights are not really rights
2001-08-20 17:41:25 guyberliner [Reply | View]
Clarification: The word "right" has at least two meanings that are quite distinct: one is narrow and limited, prescribed, for example, by a contract, or set forth in a law applying for a limited time to certain named parties. An entirely different kind of right is a "natural right," such as the rights set forth in the US Bill of Rights, or the UN's Universal Declaration.
"Copyrights" are obviously of the former sort. Unfortunately, the ideological hacks who invented the term "intellectual property rights" have done us all the inestimable harm of muddying the waters by confounding a natural right, the right to be safe in one's personal property and effects, with limited, contingent ones: exclusive monopoly rights, AKA "intellectual."
-
Divisive Licenses Harm Users?
2001-08-15 22:57:35 hpoole [Reply | View]
Tim states: "I believe that Bradley goes too far when he identifies any proprietary software as 'harming users by denying their freedom.'"
Correct, everyone is bound to some degree by software that they choose to use. But it's not that simple, because we are all increasingly bound by software that our employers and governments choose for us. We should all accept that the developers choice of a license does have a great impact on society. Once people begin using software, they develop a certain symbiosis with it. Like learning to speak a language, they can have a hard time switching from one sytem of interaction to another. So, they are effectively locked in by the natural human aversion to change.
Brad's point that propriety software "harms users by denying their freedom" is still true. When we, as developers, choose a license that doesn't protect freedom, then we affect more than ourselves. Not just users either. Proprietary software also harms developers by denying their freedom unless they are the sole copyright holder (which is rare). Most of the developers must agree to whatever terms the owner dictates, even if they don't want to. The developers and users become locked in to these terms, which by nature create groups with power and those without (when the license limits freedom). The owners of the code get to dictate the law. Unless the license protects freedoms, it is harmful to the majority of developers and users.
In short, the license restrictions that we choose as developers can effect generations to come...not just our current users and ourselves. We have an important role in shaping the future of these new laws that we are creating by the code we write...we should seriously consider how we would like our future to unfold.
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." - William Hazlitt
-
Divisive Licenses Harm Users?
2001-08-16 16:06:45 TimO'Reilly [Reply | View]
I very much agree with the idea that software gains power by its pervasiveness, such that users no longer have the freedom to choose their own software. As Henri says, it may be chosen by their employers, or even just by the force of the marketplace. As economists have pointed out, there's a natural tendency to monopoly in software, because once it reaches critical mass, you tend to need the same software that others are using. But note that this is only true if the software uses proprietary data formats! If the software is "open" as to its data formats and interfaces, the user is not locked in.
To me, this very argument points out that the problem is abuse of monopoly power, not the intrinsic nature of software distributed without source code. Software distributed with source code frees me from a certain kind of lock in, but this is less of an imperative if the vendor isn't trying for lock in in the first place.
I'm mindful of the wonderful old Usenet .sig quote from Doug Gwyn, which went something like this: "If UNIX didn't let you do stupid things, it wouldn't let you do smart things either." One of the problems I have with the GPL is that it tries to correct for abuses by proprietary vendors ("stupid things") by making them impossible. But this cuts off various business models that, if done properly ("smart things"), provide huge benefits to users and other developers. Not all software (or other work products, such as books) are done for the love of it, or to "scratch the creator's own itch." A lot are done to put food on the table and a roof over someone's head. And so we have to make room for models that provide a richer spectrum of incentives for the work to be done. I believe in marketplaces -- a willing seller and a willing buyer, with a range of currencies (from dollars to the esteem of peers) as the exchange -- and trust that over time, any abuses can be corrected by education and advocacy.
I'd rather leave people the freedom to do stupid things, while encouraging them to do smart things.
These issues are really worth thinking about very deeply, because the ground is changing under our feet. If we don't separate out the real goals (deep freedom of choice) from more superficial freedoms (e.g. the ability to change the source code), we might find ourselves in a world, where, for instance, source code is always redistributable but vendors have found other forms of lock-in (patents, for instance, or just monopoly market power that allows them to keep changing a data format faster than competitors can keep up.) The fundamental freedom is the freedom of choice, not the freedom to have source code. Having source code is a step towards that freedom, but not the first freedom in and of itself.
-
Excellent articles
2001-08-15 20:05:31 ftobin1 [Reply | View]
I can't say much more than I highly, highly enjoy reading these response-type debates. Each side is sanely responding to the other, and there actually is headway made, I feel. While at first glance it might seem like each side is just re-iterating their position, the clarity with which they do so advances the discussion, for there are fine lines being drawn, and without clarity, the discussion is without focus.
Both the arguers for the FSF and Tim O'Reilly articulate their positions very well, and I feel that reading their articles truly do help inform users.
Worse if there is no income to protect a project, it may be taken over.
The optimum balance will be free access and reasonable compensation.
I have a concept to implement this but I need a more efficient communicator to help explain it so that we can arrive at a consensus.
The basic axioms are
Intellectual Property is not stolen until it is used for benefit.
The compensation should be based on the benefit to the user and the cost to the producer.
Complete accountability.
Incentive to improve.
Early adopters of an element are investors.
Peoples time is valuable.