What is Free Software?

Forget that “Open Source” stuff. I’m talking about the good stuff here. Good old “Free-as-in-Freedom-Fries” Free. How do we define Free software?

There are two common checklists: the “Four Freedoms” of the Free Software Foundation, and the Debian Free Sofware Guidelines. Let’s take a look at each one first:

Here’s the thing

We generally consider software Free based on the license under which it is released. Basically, if it falls under a GPL- or BSD-like license we call the software “Free”. This is because the entire implementation of Free Software is built upon the very clever use of copyright law that Richard Stallman saw. However the foundation of the concept is not restricted to the license alone. It is a lazy shortcut to determine if software is Free based solely on its license.

Consider this: Say I create a small bit of software and I get a clear patent on it. Assume there is no prior art and software patents are being upheld. I release the code under your favorite OSI-approved license while at the same time publicly stating I will sue anyone who distributes modified copies of the code for violating my patent. Is that software Free?

If you define your software as being Free based solely on its license, then yes it is. If, however, you define your software as being Free based on the ideas of the Four Freedoms or the DFSG, I would say it is not Free. This not just a silly thought experiment, there have been some creative attempts at parsing licensing in the past.

Consider this: Say in the future, there exists some new sort of legal classification of ideas. Call it “mindright”. Courts uphold that creators of a work control the “mindright” to a work, and if someone violates that “mindright” they can be sued. No existing license today speaks to “mindrights”. If I release a small bit of software under your favorite OSI-approved license while at the same time reserving “mindrights” for myself and publically stating I will sue anyone who violates my “mindrights”  with the code, is that software Free?

Again, if you only consider the license, you may say yes. But if you consider the whole picture, you probably will say no.

This is because it is not the license alone that makes software Free. The license is a way in the existing legal system to try to realize the concept of Free Software. If something in our legal system (or business practice) changes, then it could become true that the existing licenses are no longer sufficient to enforce or permit the necessary freedoms, and therefore software so licensed is no longer Free.

That’s where GPLv3 comes in

Agree or disagree with it, but that is why the GPL often says “or any later version”, and that is also much of the reason for the GPLv3. At the time of the GPLv2, software patents were not a consideration. Now they are. So the text of the GPL had to be updated to stay effective in the changed business environment. Understand clearly that the principles behind the GPL never changed. Because it is not the license that makes Free Software, rather it is what the license enforces that makes Free Software.

Consider this: Say the GPL was found in court to not do what we all think it does. The judge decides some clause or two is wrong and so the GPL is invalid and not legally binding. The GPLv4 will have to be introduced to deal with this new development. Software that is released under the old versions of the GPL will no longer be Free Software, because the license can not enforce the requirements of being Free Software.

Whither now, Mono?

Because we know Microsoft holds patents over C#, the CLI, and other parts of .NET, it becomes risky to think that a license alone makes Mono Free Software, because the licenses Mono is released under are silent on the point of patents. We need some additional assurances. International standard bodies requires RAND licensing, but that alone is not enough for Free Software. A one-time payment of $5 is reasonable and non-discriminatory if required of everyone, but that certainly is not Free software in any sense of the word. No-royalty helps, but again there could be other terms that prevent RAND-Z technologies from being Free.

You could promise not to sue, but the problem with a promise like that is there are all sorts of doubt about what a promise actually covers. Companies go to court all the time for differences of interpretation in legal documents, and Microsoft making up a Community Promise or Open Specifications Promise mitigates, but does not eliminate all risk. (All risk can not be eliminated, of course, so that alone is not a failing of the Community Promise.)

The question then becomes: Do you think that the licensing of the software, when combined with the patent assurances Microsoft has given are sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Four Freedoms? Of the Debian Free Software Guidelines?

Think on that in great detail and see what answer you come up with – think on it first trusting Microsoft to do the “right” thing, and once again assuming Microsoft will do the “wrong” thing. Can software be conditionally Free, depending on the intention of Microsoft? It is a sort of Schrödinger’s Freedom – how Free the software is depends on how Microsoft decides to act!

Perhaps you think that the assurances of the ECMA/ISO standard and the Community Promise are sufficient when combined with the licensing terms to consider Mono Free Software. I do not think that is an unreasonable conclusion. Now, read Microsoft’s Moonlight Covenant, and see if you get the same answer about Moonlight.

One thing I really like about this article is they hit one of the mono apologists’ favorite distortions right out of the gate:

It’s true that all software patents are a threat to developers—but that doesn’t mean that all software patents are equally threatening. Different companies might have patents that could be used to attack other languages, but if we worried about every patent that could be used against us, we wouldn’t get anything done. Microsoft’s patents are much more dangerous: it’s the only major software company that has declared itself the enemy of GNU/Linux and stated its intention to attack our community with patents.

Now I’ve been preaching this gospel since Day 1. It is pure dishonesty to pretend like every company present the same risk and hostility to Linux, Free Software, or Open Source that Microsoft does. Microsoft’s hostility and desire to destroy Linux is not the fevered imaginations of wild-eyed zealots. It is documented. It is proven. It is inarguable.

Now, you may want to advance the idea that Microsoft has changed. That is a possibility, sure – but it is not documented, proven or inarguable. The safe and sane position towards Microsoft is suspicion and wariness. Microsoft made it so, not wild-eyed zealots. It also becomes on open question on what type of change it is.

You may also want to advance the idea that Microsoft’s hostility is overstated. That is a possibility, as well – but you run into a real problem with objectivity there. That is, there is no way for us to know the limits or true intention of Microsoft’s hostility. We can only know that we have more proof and evidence for Microsoft’s hostility to Linux, Free Software and Open Source than any other other entity in existence – with the arguable exception of SCO – and that we have evidence they systematically lie and disguise their intent.

What you can not honestly do, though, is to pretend like Microsoft does not have a long and documented history of unfair, illegal, and highly questionable tactics against Linux, Free Software, Open Source and even commercial competitors. You can also not pretend like it is “ancient history” or that the very same people that participated in such tactics are not still active within Microsoft.

Nonetheless, it seems if you find any discussion of Mono you will eventually run into some Mono/Microsoft apologists pretending like doubting Microsoft is irrational, if not downright cheese-eating surrender monkey cowardice. You know those hillbillies that handle snakes because they think Jesus will protect them? They aren’t brave, they are deluded. You know those guys that don’t handle snakes? They aren’t cowards, they are rational.

Offering solutions

Another nice thing that the FSF has done is to offer up an acceptable solution, as well as an invitation to Microsoft to work together to reach a real and inarguable solution.

There is an interesting point within: just as “Only Nixon could go to China”, only the FSF has the credibility to assure people that Microsoft’s offerings are valid. Novell does not have that credibility. Team Mono does not have that credibility.

When you mock the core principles of Free Software, embrace “pragmatism”, and compromise your ethics a little bit here and a little bit there, you might profit in the short term; but long term, when you go to make a stand and ask people to trust you, things are different then. In one light that is unfair, but the reality is that is what happens when you enter into anti-community and secretive deal and take $400+ million dollars from Microsoft.

Oh, and continuing to fight the FSF or rms with whatever flavor of scandal or slander you can grab doesn’t add to your credibility either. Just in case you thought it did. No, it only spreads the taint of your lack of credibility. Like a single rotten apple spoiling the barrel, so does one dishonest hateful apologist spoil a “movement”.

Sadly, this works on both sides. Which is why my arguments are always only the Purest of Logic and Reason, and I constantly refrain from personally attacking The Lying Slanderous Bastards in the Opposition.

More to come

I encourage everyone to read and think on the FSF statement. There are some interesting arguments in there, and I would like to see a much longer and detailed essay forthcoming.

It also notes that a FSF statement will be forthcoming.

If rms and the FSF won’t get behind – or at least won’t withdraw opposition to – mono, then the community will remain divided. The level of flat distrust for Microsoft and the level of flat trust for rms are obstacles to big to overcome by any argument I’ve ever heard Team Mono make.

If I were on Team Mono or Novell and wanted to put things to bed, I would try to get an statement from the FSF on what they want to see that would be satisfactory, instead of straight negative criticism on how the Community Promise is unsatisfactory. A rejection without suggestions is hard to overcome; but a “checklist” of things that need to happen provides an opportunity to at least do something constructive with.

I doubt this is going to happen, though. I think we had a chance here to move this thing closer to a resolution, but it seems like it is slipping away.

Team Mono + Novell + Microsoft simply do not have the credibility to overcome a rejection by rms + FSF.

Also: watch the knives come out for rms big time after the statement. I am predicting a blind rage from mono apologists attacking rms every way possible – and a ratio of 1 valid address of his points :  250 personal attacks.

Give it a read if you haven’t already; it is both consise and complete. There has already been an outpouring of willful misunderstanding of rms’ argument and a truly disgusting amount of personal attacks.

Even so, there is one particular point that spoke to me:

It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

Alright then. Here I come.