What's wrong with having ideals?
When blogging or replying in forums, I increasingly get replies like I got on my previous blogpost about the FSF's statement in the mono debate:
"Unfortunately, the FSF has crossed the line between towards religious fundamentalism way too long ago"
Besides not providing anything factual in the debate, these responses always puzzle me. Free Software (which is the original movement) has always been about ideals.
The GPL licenses, the AGPL, documenation licenses and anything else have never been anything more that protecting the ideal of Free Software. If you reject the ideals, you are left with nothing but commercial software with practical benefits like source code.
I will proudly admit this: I'm an idealist, not in Free Software alone, it's my way of life and I would rather not live at all than live without my ideals.
Comments
16 comments postedWay to go, my friend. "Live free or die."
I have by no means been following the mono debate, and i have only skimmed your posts on the planet, but I am not really sure i see your idealism...
I mean, how is shunning C# and apps built with it idealistic? Unless your ideal is some kind of FOSS sense of purity, the RMS point of view strikes me as anything but idealistic and instead very conservative.
IMHO an idealist in this situation would say that perhaps MS can be trusted enough that partnerships (the likes Miguel has been forging with those within MS) are of more benefit and vastly more productive than repeated fearmongering. Maybe MS and FOSS can learn to better work together, and realise that there is potential for cooperation of mutual benefit.
At the end of the day RMS is taking a very fearful view of the situation which is anything but hopeful, and to me, his arguments seem vague. This does not scream idealism to me.
"IMHO an idealist in this situation would say that perhaps MS can be trusted enough that partnerships (the likes Miguel has been forging with those within MS) are of more benefit and vastly more productive than repeated fearmongering. Maybe MS and FOSS can learn to better work together, and realise that there is potential for cooperation of mutual benefit."
Actually, there is no partnership. If you want to ship or build on mono, you need to get one of those royalty free thingies that Sam Varghese tried to obtain and failed.
Both RMS and myself are not saying that mono should be destroyed or no apps should be written in it whatsoever. We are saying 2 things, no vital part of the Linux desktop should depend on mono so that it actually is trivial to rip out when problems hit us and distributions should ideally not install mono by default opting for alternative applications by default.
RMS is not being fearfull and neither am I, but planning ahead has gotten the Free Software community to this point. Being reckless and opening us to attack by a known enemy does not seem like a wise course of action to me.
It's the opinion of the FSF that in the ideal situation, all software is Free.
They have all sort of (IMHO rather valid) reasons for wanting this.
They question everything that stands in between the current situation and their goals.
If that's not idealism, I don't know what is.
The FSF has a number of criteria for Free software. Being able to run said software unrestricted on any platform in any situation without hinderance most certainly is part of the bigger picture.
There is a higher than usual chance that Mono will not fit that bill in the future so the FSF made a comment about it. There is nothing fundamental about that.
What's wrong with them? Well if they conflict with those of others (because everyone has them), there is a problem...
Yes, but who's problem is that exactly?
I hate to become an opportunist, sorry,
Fundamentalism is not idealism. Having ideals, being idealistic, is good. It leads you to believe in something greater than yourself; to evangelise for that belief; to show people why it's good. Fundamentalism is where, instead of evangelising your belief, you hate and vilify those who don't share it. I don't think anyone's castigating the FSF for being idealistic; being idealistic is a good thing to almost everyone in the open source and free software communities. Castigating them for being fundamentalist is not the same complaint.
I disagree. I think fundamentalism is sticking to the fundamentals, and therefore refusing compromise. It does not require hate or vilification. The FSF seem fundamentalist because they refuse any compromises against the four freedoms.
The problem with idealism is that it's usually unrealistic.
Although I'm very big on compromise, but it's not something you can do to your ideals.
Let's say one of those ideals is that human rights are untouchable, compromise could mean agreeing to torture...
Refusing torture under all circumstances would be fundamentalis.
That's just plain twisted.
People are castigating the FSF for their idealism, claiming they should only look for practicality in their licenses, statements and mission.
The FSF is not about lower TCO or about better software, it's about liberating knowledge (source-code is knowledge) in much the same way libraries do for books.
That's why the GPLv3 was a natural evolution to the Free Software guys and came as a hinderance to the Open Source crowd.
Well said. I think the Free Software community has a lot of people on the sidelines who could be a lot more boisterous about what their ideals are.
I think the other side has ideals too, they're just different ideals.
I think as a people, as a society, begins to focus more on freedom from ideas instead of freedom of ideas, we begin to lose character. So many people now are focussed on the fight to prevent someone else from sharing their ideals/beliefs with them that they have become lax in developing their own ideals & beliefs. We have, for a long time, been told 'Don't shove your beliefs on me' that we've begun to believe that this is meet and right. It's just not true - think of it taken to an extreme: The court system is society's way of imposing its beliefs on unruly/irresponsible citizens. You get too out of hand and we'll take away your liberty. Everything will be provided for you - bed, housing, food, clothing - but you will have no personal liberty...you can't even control when the lights come on and go out.
We have forgotten that there is a difference between liberty and license. Liberty is law from within - ideals, beliefs, ethics structuring your life and governing your responsibilities. License is law from without - structure and rule of a governing body that limits your abilities and freedoms to its own idea of 'right' and 'good'.
The FSF offers liberty. Other companies (such as the one from Redmond) offer license. As for me, I'll choose liberty.
Tal
Those kind of comments are usually the result of people who really don't agree with the FSF (or whoever) on a particular idea(l).
Also any idealistic/polical/religious movement of respectable size will create it's opposers, which is good for the balance and keeps everybody on it's toes. "Question everything" is a good attitude :)
Questioning everything is a good attitude, but I have seen a disturbing trend against the FSF in recent years coming from people who want the practical benefits of Free Software without the ethics that go with it.
If that is their choosing, then BSD licensed code might be more suitable for them.
There's a huge difference between idealism and extremism/fanaticism/fundamentalism/etcism. Yes all of these groups are types of idealists, but the *ismists fail to see all sides of an issue because of their extreme bias and unwillingness to listen.
I'm not making an argument for whether or not the FSF fits that bill, I'm just explaining the argument you didn't understand.
I admire people like RMS for being passionate about free software and at the same time being capable of not letting themselves into a flamefest. Walking this line is for sure not the easiest thing to do.
People are people and sometimes find it easier to belittle or ridicule if they find an argument they don't like.
Remarks like "Smoking is not healthy, but you have to die of something" comes to mind.
I guess the trick is to keep pushing your own ideals and agenda while not taking these things personal. Getting involved in the mud-slinging is always bad. (although good fun at times).
If you know how to do that, let me know.
Cheers,
Matt