free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### is-free-software-justifiable *originally posted:* feb 2023 *updated:* dec 2023 if your answer is that the question is backwards, you got it. free software is the default state of software- at least it was originally. proprietary software has tried to justify itself with promises it (not too surprisingly) never kept. really, so much control is given to other people based on promises of wealth, protection, salvation, love, and the all-encompassing "returning the favour" that is true with honest people at least, but promised also by people who not only didnt mean it but never would mean it. the promise of non-free software is that it will be better. this isnt a good enough reason to use code (or laws) to keep people out of their own computer, but on top of that its frequently untrue. putting aside that "better" can mean different things to different people, non-free software routinely fails its own criteria. the whole idea is terrible. it isnt justified. software only became copyrightable a few decades ago; in the early days there was little reason to try to make a product out of software-- computers were products and software was often written specifically for the model it ran on. computer sales were rare, and far from a commodity where lock-in was something you had to create as an afterthought. when businesses tried to tackle the productisation of software, non-disclosure agreements served the purpose that copyright couldnt be applied to. in many instances, bad copyright laws start in the united states and are exported by trade agreement, though the broader rule is that worse copyright (rather than reform) is what tends to be exported-- as a rule this means from the usa to other countries, but when the law is worse elsewhere, it eventually comes to the united states. so it was in 1976 (the new rules would not go into effect until 1980) that international rules about software would be applied in the usa where computer code was not copyrightable. and though without copyright, companies could (and likely would) just go back to non-disclosure agreements, copyright on code is a lot like a non-disclosure agreement that everyone is entered to by default (rather than say, by agreement) although in many instances youre more free to talk about copyrighted code than you are if you signed an nda. this is nothing compared to how free you are to talk about it if the software has a free license however. a free software license is like a disclosure agreement, where it is disclosed that everyone agrees you can talk about the software. though sometimes too much is made of this, copyright is not supposed to apply to certain "useful" articles both in a us constitutional sense and an international sense. for example, as a rule its difficult or impossible to copyright articles of clothing-- you can patent certain things like zippers, but that monopoly has a shorter duration than copyright; you can trademark a logo, but these things work differently from copyright law. free software isnt the type of software that requires justification for existing or promoting itself, but even if it did, the advantages of having access to the code that makes your computer work are pretty straightforward. the advantages of non-free software have always been tenuous, and the costs to users in terms of what they can do with their computer (or how reliable it is with non-free software) can be substantial. its important to note the difference between using non-free software and writing non-free software. using non-free software isnt an ethical problem, anymore than getting a purse stolen is an ethical problem (the actions of the person whose purse is stolen are not unethical-- the problem is with the person stealing the purse). people want to know if their use of non-free software is "allowed" or not-- using free software is good because it helps the movement, fully-free distributions exist because the fsf wont seriously recommend distributions with non-free software included, but the actual ethical issue is when you write and distribute software that denies people their freedom to control their computing and share their knowledge. people are conditioned to confuse these two things. this is like a very minor example of stockholm syndrome-- software companies deny people basic rights, lie to them to justify this abuse, and people end up with stronger feelings for these companies and the freedom-denying software than they have for their own basic rights. but even if they identify with the authors of non-free software, the authors get to exercise more rights than they do. can these companies justify the way they treat users? they can use money they got from customers to lobby against the rights of the same customers, they can change the laws to work better for companies than they work for most people-- but buying the legal system is a strange way to justify an action. license: 0-clause bsd ``` # 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 # # Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any # purpose with or without fee is hereby granted. # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES # WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF # MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR # ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES # WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN # ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF # OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ``` => https://freesoftwareresistance.neocities.org