A gathering of thoughts around some current issues.

So, there has been a lot of “chatter” around the Microsoft CodePlex Foundation. Let’s hit on a few of those issues here!

Miguel de Traitor

Assuming that the reports are true, RMS referred to Miguel de Icaza as “basically a traitor” to Free Software. I don’t know Mr. de Icaza personally, nor am I familiar with the internals of his past interactions with Free Software, nor am I a leading figure in the Free Software movement, so I can’t say the same thing.

Here is one point that I have seen made, and would like to emphasize. The “spectacular factor” of being a traitor is because of one’s past history. So, it doesn’t address the situation to bring up Mr. de Icaza’s past contributions, because if he were not at one time a notable figure in Free Software, there would be reason at all to call the man a traitor.

No one would call Steve Ballmer a traitor to Free Software.

That point out of the way, I’ve often said I think Team Mono is far more on the “misguided” end of the spectrum than the “evil” end. I just don’t ascribe Mr. de Icaza’s (or his supporters’) actions to malice or wickedness. I am in agreement with Goethe in this area, at least.

Halo Ain’t Just a Game

One problem with using provocative language – like calling someone a “traitor” – is you run the risk of losing the moral high ground. RMS has been under constant attack from Mono and Microsoft apologists, from PR spinmeisters with strong commercial interests, and anyone that doesn’t like the idea of Free Software.

These attacks have been almost entirely personal attacks, but that same noise machine will now attempt to paint RMS’ comments as some Rubicon crossing that sets a new low in the discourse. That is the sad nature of a large portion of this “debate” – it is not intellectually honest.

Microsoft Hatred

Picking up traction is the idea that “Microsoft Hatred” is driving Mono/Moonlight/CodePlex/Miguel criticism, and perhaps is even the real ideological foundation of the Free Software movement.

Of course, this is absurd and insulting, but I suppose I should take a moment to point out that RMS and the FSF also object to Apple, Amazon, DRM, and Software Patents. It is a very consistent and principled stand for end-user freedom and against those actors trying to control and restrict freedom. It just so happens that Microsoft is one of the largest offenders in this area. So they get a lot (but proportionately appropriate) amount of criticism.

Further the idea that objection and criticism == hatred is false. The intent is to discredit the critic by portraying is message as emotionally driven and irrational. But pointing out that some companies are working very hard to remove freedom through DRM, patents, proprietary formats, price dumping, illegal practices, bribery, vote-stacking, or other offensive practices is fact-based, rational, and grounded in documented evidence.

“Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.” – FSF Essay

Capitalism Hatred

Not as popular, but still trotted out from time to time is the insinuation that the Free Software movement is Communist, anti-Capitalist, or even downright un-American!

The fact is the Free Software Foundation has no problem with capitalism, profiting from distributing software, or apple pie and baseball.

“Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.” – FSF Essay

Zealotry

The all time most popular canard is that Free Software supports, especially RMS and the FSF are zealots. Again, the intent is to discredit by portraying the messenger as emotionally driven and irrational.

But, you might have heard: “Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.”

Complaining that the Free Software Foundation is too focused on freedom is like complaining that the NRA is too focused on guns, the ACLU too focused on Civil Libarties, the NAACP too focused on African-American issues, or the AARP too focused on retired people.

These organizations have a guiding goal. That is their reason for existing! That’s not zealotry, that’s an effective organization.

There will be times where Freedom and Capitalism clash. In those cases, every time, the FSF will come down on the side of Freedom. If  there is no clash, there is no problem.

There will be times where Freedom and Pragmatism clash. In those cases, every time, the FSF will come down on the side of Freedom. That is what they do.

If you disagree with the FSF on an issue, it is because you value so other consideration more and Freedom less in that particular instance. That’s understandable, because you are probably not an organization set up with the sole purpose of promoting Free Software. But it doesn’t make the FSF “zealots” any more than it makes you “anti-freedom”.

Hypocrisy, part Roswell 47

Which makes this a good place for me to point out another of my favorite examples of hypocrisy!

Here is a very common defense of Microsoft: “Microsoft is just doing business like any other company. That’s just how business is done!”

Even if we accept this as truthful, and even if we further accept it as indemnifying Microsoft – two major concessions – then how is it OK for Microsoft to do its business, and not OK for the FSF to do its business?

If it is OK for a corporation to act as Microsoft does, then surely it must be OK for an organization to act as the FSF does!

This article was cross-posted at The Source.com!