Is Richard Stallman a Libertarian? Tim Lee thinks so.

I really need to stop taking weekends off from blogging.  Over at Tech Liberation Front, Tim Lee has taken our ongoing discussion on the GPLv3 and started a rather interesting new thread on the topic. Since, I'm already 3 days late to the party, I'll try to summarize and start a new discussion here.

In response to my evidence that the FSF designed the GPLv3 to prevent the growing collaboration between proprietary and free and open source software developers, Tim offered the following rebuttal:

The problem with this argument is that if you look at the FSF’s actions, you’ll find very little evidence that they’ve ever tried to prohibit GPL users from collaborating with proprietary software firms. Stallman doesn’t approve of distributing proprietary software drivers with free software, but as far as I can see, nothing in the GPL prohibits doing so...

...And for that matter, I can’t even think of any examples where the FSF has criticized efforts to make free and proprietary software more interoperable, provided that they didn’t involve incorporating free software into a proprietary system. For example, has Stallman ever criticized Samba, a program whose entire purpose is to make free software work on Windows-based networks? Has he criticized efforts by the Open Office team to allow free software users to use Microsoft Word documents?

Tim is right about one thing.  There isn't anything in the GPLv2 or current drafts of version 3 that actively prevents free software distributors from shipping proprietary binaries alongside free software.  Unfortunately, Tim is missing the forest for the trees.

In the Mac, Windows, Unix and all non-free software operating systems, many proprietary video and audio card drivers are seemlessly integrated into the software.  Free Software distributors are forced to ship them as separate binaries (if their moral compass even allows them to do so), which is a klugey solution at best.  And why are they forced to do this?  Because the GPL demands it.  It prevents the integration of proprietary and open source code.  If you are a believer in the Free Software cause, this is sacrifice you're willing to make, but for the rest of the world... well, we just want things to work.

Another fact that Tim has right while missing the big picture is that Stallman has never attacked the Samba team.  Samba is helping create free alternatives to the Windows Operating system, of course he would not attack them, as long as they don't integrate any proprietary code into their system. The part that Tim doesn't seem to get, is that the GPL deal goes both ways... it's not just designed to prevent proprietary software companies from usurping free code, it also prevents open source companies from integrating any proprietary code into their products, OR even having dependencies on proprietary code.

This brings us to one fact that Tim got blatantly wrong.  Stallman HAS attacked the OpenOffice team for relying on proprietary code in the past.  This article from NewsForge chronicles the dispute over OpenOffice's reliance on Java code and the FSF's plans to rewrite the code to remove any of those dependencies. 

Despite what Tim asserts, Stallman is not content with promoting his goals merely through persuasion and cooperation.  The GPL comes complete with the copyright equivalent of land use restrictions that limit what you (and now your customers) can do with that software.  It essentially says that if you build a new barn on top of your land (aka GPL Software), you need to share your designs with the entire world.  Does that REALLY jive with traditional libertarian beliefs?  The GPL is designed to force anyone who uses that software to accept the ideology of the FSF either for moral or pragmatic reasons.   

Unfortunately, Tim wants so badly to preserve his image of Richard Stallman a libertarian crusader, that he seems willing to ignore any facts that contradict that theory.  Stallman is an idealogue, Tim.  One that is willing to force his views on others and defend the orthodoxy of the Free Software movement (For example, see his article "Why Open Source misses the Point of Free Software").  If you're looking for a libertarian hero among the open source community, I suggest Linus Torvalds himself.   

Comments

[John Nilsson]

Would it be easier for you guys if you recognized him as a libertarian socialist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

With a view on freedom as Positive Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

And view on property that recognize other forms than private property?

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/12/georgism-tuckerism-and-property-issues.html

[enigma_foundry]

There is clearly no reason why FSF would want to interfere with proprietary code which ships alongside GPL code. And at least your honest enough to say that GPL does not prevent this.

But you overstate the case that Unix or Mac or Windows "integrate" these drivers.

I have to download the drivers from the NVidia website to get 3D performance from Windows, and those files are still separate from the Windows kernel in exactly the same way that the NVidia kernal modules are separate from my linux kernel.

Also, Tim has responded to the comments about the OpenOffice:
"If you look closely, what I said was that Stallman has never “criticized efforts by the Open Office team to allow free software users to use Microsoft Word documents.” Stallman’s criticism of OpenOffice for building atop a proprietary platform makes perfect sense in light of his focus on users’ freedom. Free software built upon proprietary software is going to be subject to any restrictions that apply to the underlying proprietary software. Since Stallman’s focus is on preserving users’ freedom to use software as they choose, this makes perfect sense to me. Stallman objects to integrating free and proprietary software, because it runs the risk of undermining users’ freedoms. But he’s never objected to interoperability between free and proprietary software."

It is quite clear, BTW that the complexity of the current version of the GPL is entirely a reaction against Corporations which believe they have some really clever way to seal from the GPL commons, that is to use GPL code without giving back. An example would be TIVO.

Plenty of proprietary software wroks just fine with GPL Operating Systems:
http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/the-googleearth-upgrade-is-really-worth-it/

[Mark Blafkin]

Thanks for the comment, Enigma.

I readily admit that there is nothing in the GPL currently that blocks the shipping of proprietary software as separate binaries along side GPL software, and that the LGPL was created to make it easier for proprietary/non-GPL (ie other Open Source but non-compatible licenses, like Apache) to run on top or along side of GPL software. There are still some legal grey areas when it comes to dynamically loaded libraries, however, but, for the most part the issues can be navigated successfully with the help of a lawyer.

On the issue of video drivers, you're right that not all of them are integrated into the operating system, but that was why I was careful to only say “MANY proprietary video and audio card drivers are seemlessly integrated into the software.” The difference, you have to admit, is that this is not even possible with a GPL-based operating system. It may seem trivial to computer geeks like us, but it is important to the rest of the world – the fewer downloads, installs, tweaks, settings a user needs to deal with, the better in the eyes of most users.

I hope you'll also reconsider one of your statements. You assert that “There is clearly no reason why FSF would want to interfere with proprietary code which ships alongside GPL code,”. But I’m sure that you can come up with a few reasons “why” if you think about it. The most obvious: if the FSF believe that proprietary software limits the Four Freedoms and the Four Freedoms are paramount, shouldn’t they logically move toward creating roadblocks to prevent users from giving up those freedoms?

Second, the FSF provides a great argument for why developers should create libraries that proprietary progams cannot use in the piece “Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html”

"However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline."

Third, and most importantly, Stallman discusses the dangers of including proprietary software with free software pretty clearly in the Open Source v. Free Software piece on the GNU website:

"Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom. Proprietary add-on software and partially non-free GNU/Linux distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence. Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system by “open source” discussion which doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom."

In the end, I assume you'll agree that the FSF has many stated and unstated reasons to "interfere with proprietary code which ships alongside GPL code" even if they haven't done it, for whatever reason.

Now, let's talk about Tim's response. First of all, I was always talking about integration not interoperability. Tim, cleverly tried to change the terms once he realized that he was wrong about the integration point. And I agree with him that preventing integration fits with Stallman's philosophy and "makes sense" from that point of view - it doesn't, however, negate my point that it limits the ability of proprietary and open source developers to build bridges and integrate products. However, despite Tim's assertion, Stallman has criticized efforts to create interoperability with proprietary software/formats. In fact, he had an entire piece telling open source developers why they shouldn't support GIF files: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html

Finally, Let's talk about your assertion that "It is quite clear, BTW that the complexity of the current version of the GPL is entirely a reaction against Corporations which believe they have some really clever way to seal from the GPL commons, that is to use GPL code without giving back. An example would be TIVO." I think there is some validity to your claim, however, I think this version of GPLv3 adds a new element of complexity.

Previous version of the GPLv3 were designed to preserve the commons and the philosophy with strict prohibitions on DRM and really strong provisions on patents. It wasn't that practical from a biz perspective in my mind, but it was philosophically pure. Have you noticed how much this draft has changed from the previous ones? It's better from a practical point of view, but has emerged more as a series of vendettas (as Braden suggested) against certain companies rather than broader proscriptions on behavior.

Now the DRM provision is designed to practically single out Tivo. Yet, there are new carveouts to protect IBMs use of GPLv3 code on chips. And, if you're really looking to prevent the stealing from GPL commons, should you look to stop the ASP loophole that Google is living off of? Yet, they merely got a warning shot with the so-called Affero provision.

Finally, if you read the new versions of the patent provision, you'll realize there is a lot of curious language in there, including some designed to protect the IBMs current patent cross licensing deals. This version is complex for many reasons, but mostly because they FSF tried to change the loopholes for some but not all. I'll leave you to figure out why they may have wanted to do that...

[Mark Blafkin]

Thanks for your comment John.

I haven't fully digested all the links you included in your comment (partially because there are a lot of contradictory views expressed), but you definitely have a point. He could be considered a variation on social libertarian. I guess one question is whether the self-avowed social libertarains would accept him given that his copyright judo does require the government during the initial stages... which, if I've read it correctly, is one of the problems they have with traditional Marxists. What do you think?