ESR Writes About O'Reilly and FSF Differences 499
dopplex writes: "Over here at Linux Today, Eric S. Raymond has written an amusing piece in which A.) He analyzes the way in which we use the word freedom, B.) Examines the point of view of both O'Reilly and the FSF on 'freedom' and C.) Coins the term 'flerbage,' which I hereby suggest be put into immediate use, just because it's a really cool word." It's cheesy but it is a good way for people to understand the difference between Open Source and Free Software. (Oh, and I figured I'd just mention that I'll never use that F word since I think its stupid)
This is just silly (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, let's even say that such a law was passed. He doesn't address the moral idea of whether or not restricting other people's freedom to software is a bad thing or not. He just says it doesn't affect his "flerbage" because nobody is going to kill him because of proprietary software. The reason a law against proprietary software (if it ever happened - which it won't) would happen is because restricting other people's freedom is bad. You have the freedom to do what you want, but you don't have the freedom to restrict the freedom of others.
For Raymond, it seems like everything is framed in a nonsense libertarian world where the primary fear is of getting your ass kicked, shot, and thrown in jail. He makes up the term "flerbage" which no one has agreed to, yet assumes the reader implicitly agrees to it and uses it as a basis to attack others. If I were to come up with a new term and attach something that I liked to that term, would you think of it as a valid arguing style if I were to then use that term which no one necessarily agrees with to beat my opponents over the head?
This essay was just silly. Talking in the end about whether or not the FSF are "safe neighbors". Before considering issues of intellectual property law, it sounds to me like Raymond needs to consider things lower in Maslow's heirarchy of needs, since he seems overly concerned with hypothetical laws beating, shooting, and imprisoning him.
Re:Linux Today... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think lots of slashdotters are really keen on making fun of this, particularly when they think there are a few quick karma points to grab, but not many have read it straight from the source.
Rather than listening to a bunch of slashdotters make fun of things, why not read what the FSF has to say about it [gnu.org]. Far from being crazy, the argument for GNU/Linux sounds pretty damn good to me. People scream about not getting credit for their code, they scream about free software or "open-source" not getting recognition for the fact that it acts as the internet infrastructure, but they don't particularly feel like giving credit to the foundation of their own system. And we're not talking about ticker tape parades - we're talking about 3 letters and a slash.
For those who want to call it Linux, I'd just suggest this: try running your favorite distro after subtracting all of the GNU system. Have fun.
My reply: (Score:1, Interesting)
To: esr@thyrsus.com
Subject: Flerbage
After reading your article about flerbage on LinuxToday, I came away
thinking that your analysis was overly simplistic on one point to such a
great extent that it was totally handicapped by this 'over sight'.
I believe that one of the FSF's primary arguments against the *existence* of
proprietary software is that it's ill effects go well beyond the people who
choose to use it, especially in the case of popular proprietary software
(such as Microsoft Windows).
By ignoring this point, you have forced a particular conclusion: I seriously
doubt that the FSF would try to say that no one should have the right to
create proprietary software if in fact it could be shown that proprietary
software harms no more then it's users.
It would have been much more enlightening for everyone if you had followed
through enough on your article to suggest that 'flerbage compliance in
Tim/FSF world reduces to the question of the harm of proprietary software to
non-users'.
In my view, the FSF already has a strong case: The dominance of Microsoft's
proprietary OS and office productivity software have caused *me* significant
direct and indirect harm. It has made my decision to not use their software
significantly more difficult. Because I have chosen to obey the often ignored
and selectively enforced copyright laws in the context of computer software in
an effort to highlight one of the intrinsic weaknesses of proprietary
software, I have, to some extent, alienated my coworkers and family (why
won't you copy that disk for me? Don't you like me?).
I could go on, but the point is: There is a potential for the mere existence
of proprietary software to cause harm to the rest of the world. We can
prevent that harm by removing the power/freedom of the small group we call
developers to remove power/freedom from everyone else. What we must answer
is 'What is the right balance', and it may not just be as simple as
no-proprietary software or developer chooses his license.
I believe that you did a great disservice to the discussion with your
oversimplification. In the future, I hope you have more respect for your
position in the community and write a more fair and insightful analysis.
Thanks for your attention,
Greg Maxwell
Beware of libertarians bearing "freedom" (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case, arguments for "proprietary" software licenses are arguments for the use of government force on the behalf of copyright holders. I mean, all this talk about "intellectual property" is eventually backed up by state power (with guns as the final resort), right?
That's not to say that I think enforcement of copyright and contract law is necessarily or entirely a bad thing. In fact, we get a lot of good out of copyright. But I think we need to look at actual causes, effects, benefits, and costs when discussing these issues rather than taunting each other with "look, I have more liberty than you!"
Copyright law is anti-flerbage (Score:2, Interesting)
"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... I am pro-flerbage."
Copyright law is inherently anti-flerbage. If I buy a copy of Dinwoes, licensed under some proprietary license, I cannot copy it without the threat of the police coming to my house and dragging me off to jail. This is a result of copyright law, NOT contract law (IANAL). Even if you accept shrinkwrap licenses, I have not agreed to the license upon buying it; I agree upon installation. If I used Nulix to copy the Dinwoes CD, I haven't agreed to the contract provision of not copying it.
In a completely pro-flerbage world, this restriction on copying would be enforced in contract law: Sircomoft (or ESR) would say "I'll trade you this software for some money, and if you copy it, you're liable to me under contract law, and I can sue you for damages."
Unfortunately, most people don't have enough money to actually pay the damages that would be incurred if a copy of Dinwoes leaked into the marketplace without the contract-law protection against copying and redistribution. As a result, we have copyright law to allow people to sell copies of easily reproduced things, because protection against copying is enforced in criminal law, not in contract law. The theory is that this increases value: the US constitution gives the legislature authority to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" (Article I Section 8).
While I agree with ESR's conclusion, being pro-flerbage effectively means favoring abolishment of copyright law and replacing it soley with contract law, in which case only people who are extremely rich will be able to post enough bond to buy popular digital content. The street-artist's model would then prevail.
Flerbage is stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
My Ferblage, he defines, consists of three req's
1. Nobody shall kill me
2. Nobody shall rob me of my physical property
3. Nobody shall take my time without my consent.
Let us investigate whether these axioms are necessary and sufficient.
Obviously 1. and 2. are necessary and everybody will agree. However, 3. is quite difficult to enforce. Demonstrations cause traffic jams, traffic jams rob my time, should demonstrations be outlawed? Should the police be disallowed to question suspects and witnesses in a murder case, because it is taking up their time? Can we require citizens to wait at traffic lights? What about the draft?
Conclusion: Not being robbed of my time is very desirable, but hardly a necessary right.
Now for completeness. It seems to me that ERS should be quite happy living, for example, in China. They have some good facilities (e.g. Apple) where he could work. Freedom of speech, usage of the internet, freedom of movement, freedom to buy what you like all don't seem to matter to him. After all, these have nothing to do with flerbage.
Surely Raymond would not consider that his ferblage is reduced when he gets jailed for amusingly mangling the chairman's name. It would be his own fault, just like it would be my own fault if I got jailed for not properly licensing my software.
Re:Libertarians should hate ESR for this (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a free nation, after all. If no one wants copyright-like systems, they will not happen. But I would suspect that you will have a mixture of both. Some real and virtual communities may go with a copyright-less system, and co-exist with those advocating a copyright system.
if they can copy it easily (without the threat of jail) they will.
To quote from the Hammer article: "The cheater faces free enterprise. A cheater can get away with a 50 cent theft only until an entrepreneur invents a 40 cent way to catch him."
Also interesting is this quote: "Even though contract and technology will work at their best in a free nation, some efforts to restrict the copying of intellectual products will not pay for themselves. This economic reality, I suggest, will determine the extent of intellectual property rights."
In a free nation a copyright-like system can exist. But it most certainly will NOT be like the present system of statist copyrights.
Postscript: I see that the LNF site at least is now up and running. I would suggest the looking at the following articles (which are both pro and con copyright):
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights [libertariannation.org]
Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts [libertariannation.org]
The Intellectual Property Debate [libertariannation.org]
...and...
Ideas As Property" [libertariannation.org]