Pirates and Control
There have been a number of articles recently about pirates and using Free and Open Source software and it’s certainly an interesting consideration. In my opinion the problem is that people shouldn’t be fleeing a life with pirated software that’s being removed from their use (I’d say control, but users of software that is possible to pirate never really had control) by fleeing towards FOSS substitutes and I’m reminded of a quote today:
“It’s easier to understand what your running from than what your running into”
But that’s the other problem isn’t it, lots of people _still_ think Free Software is freeware. That price and immediate satisfaction are the only worthy considerations in software. Will attracting people who don’t have FOSS education into the community with the promise of free (as in water) software really help understanding why it was dumb to invest in proprietary software in the first place? Won’t they just go back to their chains with the first new gizmo *iphone* that comes along to dazzle them?
“That’s the problem with freeing people. Once you’ve freed the people they tend to do things you think are a bad idea, including making themselves slaves again.”
Shouldn’t we be trying to teach users _why_ they should support FOSS principles that:
- Scientifically peer reviewed engineering is better.
- Group collaboration is more efficient.
- User participation is more effective.
- Transparency is more trustworthy.
- Openness is more educationally valuable.
- Freedom means greater self control.
- Multiple rights holders reduces artificial restrictions.
- Enlightened self interest funds development and progress.
- And that this ownership means a choice between self reliance and support.
I’d be happier about us going out there into the world helping people with piracy problems to use Ubuntu, “Linux” or other Free and Open Source Software is along with these technical marvels we could explain why and how they exist in the first place instead of just pretending that the magic community did it.
Your Thoughts?
Tags: creative commons, Free and Open Source Software, free software, linux, Science, Ubuntu
That’s good and altruistic, but that doesn’t explain “what’s in it for me?”
* Whitelists of good applications instead of maintaining several blacklists of bad ones. (antivirus, antispyware, anti-whatever)
* Huge, secure, easy-to-use repositories.
* Much simpler to keep updated.
* With a little help and forethought, much easier to reload from scratch.
* No activation process or punching in security keys.
* Easy to uninstall things you don’t want.
Actually all the things I mention are selfish ones, they’re just not immediate technicals.
And what you’ve pointed out are some of the technical rationales, but that is completely NOT the point of what I was saying. In fact it’s the complete opposite.
As is usual, the issues that those in the Free Software community seem to have explaining the facts to people, I’ve yet to have.
Consider, a lot of times when folks bring their computers in for us to repair, the issue is most generally viruses which most often requires an OS reinstall. If they have their OS License, they get windows back, otherwise we suggest Ubuntu. (If they have had continued issues with viruses we recommend Ubuntu anyhow). If they have other programs, such as MS Office, if they have the discs and the license keys, we’re happy to install these as well. If not we suggest Open Office or another alternative.
I explain what licensing is, what the law is, what free software means, “It’s free in both senses of the word. That is it is usually gratis, no cost. But also it is software without chains. You can legally modify it, distribute it and so you’re able to use your software without restrictions. So it’s software with liberty.” That short sentence is usually enough to clarify the status and I’ve yet to have anyone not know what is going on.
But at the same time I explain the software we offer are alternatives. We might not have an alternative for every application and if they must have some particular application, we are happy to purchase and then sell them a proper license.
Those few that have complained, because a competitor put software onto the computer without a proper license, we simply explain plainly that such is not legal, and we respect the copyright holder’s licenses, just as we want people to respect our copy rights.
Great post! I am a semi-experienced FOSS user but I’ve never really understood the F. I do not claim to simply from reading this post but I enjoyed reading it and will look forward to a follow-up or something if there is any discussion.
My main problem with the F is that there is so much in the world where Freedom doesn’t exist but we get by fine and this is really due to job specialization. I’m thinking of cars in this case, I remember awhile back the U.S. car manufacturers tried to encrypt the signal from the on-board computer thereby locking out independent mechanics from being able to do much beyond oil changes and brake changes. Thankfully, legislation was put in place to make this illegal but there are other places where this hasn’t happened (print cartridges).
Anyways, my main issue is that Freedom is really a gradient not a binary but it is so often argued as if it were a binary (Stallman). I happen to like gradients though, they allow for progress whereas binary issues are either victory or failure.
[...] 17, 2010 I saw this today and thought it was a great summary about why FOSS is important. I was just looking at KDE [...]
Kind of a neat diccussion and by the way I like stuff that has to do with creativity and saw at the top of the site comm tech creativity. I recently went from one anti virus to norton and it was kind of a hassle punching in codes so I guess I whitelisted norton and blacklisted what I had before.
Idealism is binary, you make your choices and prioritise the ideal,
But don’t confuse that with practicality, there are of course long term practicalists (Stallman) and short term pragmaticals like Novell.