Redefining Freedom

[alandd at consultpros.com]

> I came across this piece (I think from the Freespire).
> Thought some of you might find it interesting.
>
> http://www.silverstrandsolutions.com/freedom/redefiningfreedom.html
> --
> -Eric 'shubes'

You are correct about the Freespire aka Linspire connection.  Background
on the author, Patrick L. Green is on this page
http://www.silverstrandsolutions.com/about.html where he is clearly
identified as a "Linspire Insider"  For what that is worth.

My opinion:

Interesting and well written, mostly.  The style is too wordy for my taste
but then I'm an engineer and enjoy clear, direct communication.

He fails to define what is bad about the Free Software philosophy from a
technical and objective standpoint.  He doesn't like to be labeled a bad
citizen for using non-Free Software combined with Free Software.  This, he
defines as taking away his freedom to choose to use non-Free Software if
he wants.

OK.  Rude people are everywhere and people who disagree with you are
everywhere too.  That doesn't address the merits (or demerits) of the Free
Software Movement's goals.  Nor does it remove his freedom to choose to
use non-FS.

His examples for the statement that "Americans willfully choose reasonable
restrictions on their constitutional rights to meet a want or a need" have
NOTHING to do with constitution rights.  He cites:
- Having to wear a shirt and shoes to get a Slurppie.
- Having to wear a tie and not peirce his lip to get a professional job.
- Not being allowed to talk about religion, politics or lifestyles in the
workplace.
NONE of these examples have to do with constitutional rights.  He lost
some credibility with me right there.

In acknowledging the current abuses of the copyright and patent systems,
he fails to address how these can or should be rectified.  Then he offers
the confusing statement "not all things have to be open to the public
domain."  Is this an attempt to confuse copyrighted, licensed Free
Software with works in the public domain, as many clueless reporters do? 
I don't know but someone new to the FS vs. close software discussion could
be confused at this point.

Brining up "handcuffs" and "losing the freedom to chose" again borders on
FUD.  Using FS does not remove the ability to use non-FS right alongside
it.  Never has.  Some corners of the community may bring pressure against
doing so, he complained about that earlier.  But usually there is no
license violation happening by doing so.  At least not a violation of the
GPL but you'll have to check your own non-FS EULAs.  ;^)

Next is the tired, but too often true, complaint that current FS users
unduly pick on, intimidate or ostracize new non-technical users.  While I
have not been subject to hardly any of this sort of thing, horror stories
do come up.  I agree with him that we current users need to be sure we
help new people come into the community.  PLUG is very good at this!

Now comes the "new" definition of freedom and community.

I'm sorry but I cannot classify Warren Woodford (of MEPIS) as a visionary.
 I have researched the issue of licensing in the MEPIS distro and have
found it lacking in several ways.  I have not researched much on the
licensing practices of Linspire and Kevin Carmony but am quite willing to
embrace people and developers that follow good licensing practice.  Warren
Woodford does not do so and therefore receives scorn from the community,
deservedly in my opinion.

His thesis that people who mix FS and OSS software with proprietary pieces
cannot be considered a good citizen is wrong. It is very possible to be a
good citizen of the FS and OSS community and still produce and sell closed
source software.  How?
- By clearly crediting the authors of the FS and OSS software that you
distribute.
- By clearly identifying the licenses of all software you distribute.[1]
- By clearly understanding and following the licenses of all software you
distribute.[2]
- By allowing open processes in which you participate to proceed by the
rules defined at their inception.[3]

[1]http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=53313&cid=121990
[2]http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1728205&tid=150
[3]http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4417146902.html

It is the integrity of ones behavior that defines good citizenship to most
FS advocates.  To the extent that so called "visionaries" violate the
spirit of the community, trying to take more than is given, is the extent
that they will continue to be pushed to the fringe.  Except for the few
rude zealots, the FS and OSS community already has the "new concepts" of
"Tolerance toward other lifestyle choices known as proprietary software
and kindness towards new entries in our community."  Linspire, MEPIS or
any other FS/OSS vendor can be a good citizen and keep their closed
software too.  They just have to play within the rules (licenses and
spirit) of the community.

That is my response to that, for what it is worth.

Alan