- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- opensource@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1366698
Richard Stallman was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not Richard Stallman or the Free Software Foundation. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen.
This article doesn’t necessarily make a statement on whether FOSS is compatible with capitalism. It could be that RMS encourages developers to charge for free software because it keeps FOSS projects sustainable while devs are forced to operate in a capitalist framework. It seems to me that the FSF has always refrained from directly making any kind of statement on capitalism, focusing (as the article says) solely on software freedom.
By failing to make a statement on capitalism, it necessarily assumes the two are not in conflict. This is a bad assumption.
The business model suggested in the article does not exist. Companies which distribute Free Software make their money by selling secondary products and services, like Canonical or Red Hat’s support services, Firefox’s Google search integration, or System 76’s hardware, not by selling the Free Software itself.
The ultimate goal of the FSF is that all software should be Free. With that in mind, the question we must ask is this:
Why is there nonFree software?
The answer is the profit motive. Without the profit motive, there would be no incentive to make software nonFree.
Consider the examples Stallman cites as the inciting incedents of his entire Free Software advocacy career: Xerox’s printer drivers and Scribe’s paywall. Why did Xerox refuse to share its driver source code? To protect its profits. Why did Unilogic ask Brian Reid to put time bombs in his code? To profit from their investment in buying that code from him.
To ignore this is fundamentally a failure, or a refusal, to understand the conflict the Free Software movement finds itself in.
No it doesn’t. Either there’s no logic in that statement at all, or you’re playing 5D chess with time travel and I’m playing checkers. While the article says:
it makes no statement on whether this activity represents a sustainable business model, nor does it explore how selling FOSS may or may not affect other businesses. I said:
because the article itself ended with:
I don’t (and can’t) know whether the absence of discussion on FOSS’ relation to capitalism represents a touch of myopia (as you suggest) on the part of RMS & the FSF, whether RMS intends to be the Gary Yourofsky of free software and it’s a deliberate choice for the sake of optics, or whether it betrays a pro-capitalism stance, but my feeling is that RMS is more concerned about FOSS as a vehicle for the creation and preservation of a digital commons, and a safeguard against privacy violation, and likely doesn’t have terribly many well informed thoughts and opinions on economic systems.
Since you’ve completely ignored my main point, I’ll just repeat it:
Capitalism is not a side issue. It is the central issue.
While you’ve ignored, or grievously misunderstood, all of my points, I didn’t ignore yours; it just has absolutely no bearing on my position that:
…and you haven’t said anything that convincingly disputes that statement; if your very obviously correct point that
profitMotive + softwareEngineer == proprietarySoftwarewas somehow meant to refute it, then I’m failing to see how.Failing to state their incompatibility is logically identical to stating their compatibility. This is trivial.
Let me make sure I’m understanding:
If I don’t tell you that I love bananas, then, logically, this means that I hate bananas?