free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### tcoyc-free-culture-and-free-hardware *originally posted:* dec 2023 two issues the free software movement has failed to deal with in an ideal way are the free culture and free hardware movements. it would have been possible for free software to better ally itself with these movements, or to keep them at arms length (which it has done anyway) without representing them so poorly. my position is that free software ultimately needs both, and i am hardly the only person who thinks this. the politics that have happened between these related movements is unfortunate, but bound to happen when the fsf leadership was not entirely honest. i think there are problems on both sides- there is a sort of political tension that i dont think is limited to just these examples. that tension may be inevitable, but it was worth the trouble, and in its desire to avoid an alliance that may be too fraught with compromise, the fsf compromised itself by promoting misunderstanding and awful alternatives. some free software advocates have tried to build bridges, but in what amounts to a rejection of promoting free culture in a way that honestly represents free culture, those who advocate for both free software and free culture were always forced to watch in dismay as those bridges were dismantled and roadblocked by the free software leadership. thats my personal take, but i dont think im the only person who noticed this sort of problem for years. in its rejection of free culture and its terrible unnecessary compromise, free software ensured that free culture would wind up the jilted lover driven into the arms of open source. while it may not be necessary for free software to embrace free culture per se- it can be reasonably argued these are separate issues, it can also be argued that they are part of the same issue- moving past an archaic, destructive copyright system that threatens free communication, electronic communication and indeed, free software. the fsf has chosen not to frame the issue this way, but the way it has framed the issue is not based as much in reality as the concept of free culture itself. instead, the fsf has- due largely to stallmans insistance- created a double standard where its morally wrong and philosophically foolish to try to "protect" code by using a copyright monopoly that prevents the 4 freedoms, but its reasonable to "protect" so-called "works of opinion" using the same archaic and oppressive restrictions. there is an attempt to make this seem reasonable- for one, american copyright, the model that most arguments for free culture and free software are based on- and to be fair, what has become more or less the lingua franca of international copyright, though that was originally the purview of the berne convention and united nations (before that, the british crown)- has a distinction between "useful" or functional works, making some things uncopyrightable by nature. this used to include software. thus stallman is not entirely making up the distinction, far from it. but what he does is create a distinction and category for works "of opinion" that broadly undermines the advantage of free culture in the first place, and its not a very useful or very clear distinction when leaned upon for guidance. in other words, he simply muddied the waters of free culture without any actual need to do so. in terms of copyright reform as a movement, its a bit like not recognising the existence of burma or palestine just because you have some other ally to placate. if it did not cost the fsf allies (it did of course) the real shame from a strategic standpoint is that it did much to strengthen the opponents of free software. it would have been an ideal alliance, but only if the fsf saw the point of it- and only if free culture didnt try to usurp free software the way that open source did. but in my opinion, free software dishonestly misrepresented free culture, citing some issues that were valid and worth fixing (free culture worked to fix these) and other issues that were not entirely fair, accurate or true- the latter was absolutely the fault of stallman and the fsf. from a strategic standpoint, it didnt avoid tension between free software and free culture, it exacerbated it. this was a factor in the coup that would take place years later, but i had been saying for years that the way free software treated free culture as a subject would ultimately hurt the fsf and the free software movement. the coup proved this to be a sound prediction- without the free culture factor, the coup might have been smaller and included fewer organisations. with that said, i dont think free culture is the ONLY factor in why free culture organisations participated. it would be ridiculous to ignore this factor however. most of the remaining free culture figures at the fsf, whose involvement dates back to free software award winner, former fsf board member and creative commons founder lawrence lessig- those advocates resigned (lessig himself left years prior) from the fsf when stallman announced his "return". the focus was on stallmans politics and misconduct, but it should be said that stallman was also a divisive force between free software and free culture for years. no matter what role free culture played in this- and i do actually blame both sides, i dont think anyone played a more divisive role between free software and free culture than stallman himself. people worked for years to build bridges, and he would knock them down with what amounted to nonsense he was himself only half-invested in intellectually. this makes a neat segue to stallmans positions on free hardware, which are based in ignorance and double standards. i consider free hardware to be an absolute necessity. where some of stallmans unnecessary and half-baked positions that he places at odds with free culture are ridiculous, obtuse and undeniably out of touch- his positions at odds with free hardware are worse and arguably even more destructive. while he and the fsf have sabotaged any possibility of a strong alliance of free culture and free software that doesnt either skirt his interference or push stallman out of their way entirely, the problem is more pronounced and show-stopping with the fsfs relationship with free hardware. it did not take a free software operating system for the fsf to be founded, or for stallman to talk about the importance of free software. the rhetoric, the organisation, the movement all predated the gnu operating system as a functional and bootable thing. emacs existed, a text editor with substantial functionality, but gnu was announced not long before the fsf was founded. this is important for demonstrating the double standard. when stallman dismisses the importance of free hardware, he clearly does it out of concern for the philosophical and practical challenges that free hardware could create for free software. that is understandable, but not excusable- particularly when the rebuttal of its importance is not honest or accurate. one real problem that could result from advancing free hardware is that it could overshadow the importance of also having software that is free. years ago, i said "i can totally foresee people insisting that it doesnt matter if your software is free, as long as you control the hardware it runs on". it was a lament then, and its a lament now- this is a real hazard of free hardware to be sure. but despite this hazard (as i said years ago) the opposite lament applies too: people will say that it doesnt matter if your hardware is free, as long as the software you run is free. and that isnt true either- we need both free software and free hardware. we need both free software and free culture. and the fact that free software is "farther along" because its easier to establish than liberating decades-old radio hits or fabricating cpus makes this a practical issue for the fsf- with NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the moral or ethical importance of free hardware and free culture. most of the problems that have applied to free software, can be moved to problems created by hardware. practically speaking, these will typically be implemented as firmware, but the fsfs position on firmware cannot prevent this problem. if you implement non-free firmware as physical circuits in an ic package, it becomes non-software and the fsf treats it like any other non-software-based electronics: as an issue outside the scope of their mission. then magically, if you implement non-free firmware on an fpga then prevent further writing with an irreversible a write-protect fuse (that technology exists and is in use) this is also treated as non-software-based and outside the scope of the fsfs mission. which is great for the fsf, but for users its the same lack of freedom as any other non-free firmware. because the fsf wants to certify hardware as "freedom respecting," it actually encourages such a loophole for the sake of meeting their standards, though non-free firmware on nand flash that can still be rewritten is held to what is effectively a double standard again. the most honest way to sum this up is that the fsf advocates firmware that is effectively less free, for the sake of them promoting making firmware that is more free, even if the latter never actually happens. the free hardware movement, though understandably not as far along in success as free software, is not going to be fooled by this nonsense. its as ridiculous as recognising the marriage of two people from different countries, who have never even met- for the sake of denying either the right to legally marry someone else because it would constitute polygamy. and because the free hardware movement is not as far along- again, understandably, stallmans rhetoric about the movement is dismissive enough that if taken seriously, you might not think a free hardware movement exists. and yet the goal of liberating users is the same- it has the same long term goals as free software, EXACTLY THE SAME goals, but with hardware- but because of the threat it poses to short term goals for free software, stallman and the fsf treat it dishonestly and as a threat. this is not only reminiscent of the way that the fsf and stallman treated free culture in the past and still treat it today, it might also remind you of the way that feminism originally didnt include black women (and sometimes still speaks over them), how it dubbed lesbians the "lavender menace" until the latter demanded inclusion, and indeed terfs- who consider themselves feminists- refuse to include trans women as women who need feminism because of course, theyre also women. i am not saying this to criticise feminism- yes, past feminists have made these mistakes and at least a few continue to this day- rather, i am pointing out that feminism has been forced to evolve to include these critically important groups as part of the progress of feminism itself. in a world where free software was more reasonable, more ethical, more successful and more honest, it too would be essentially forced to FULLY acknowledge both the legitimacy and the vital importance of free culture and free hardware. instead, it places itself at odds with these largely parallel issues, and insodoing undermines its own mission and success. the answer to this problem is no more to deny the importance of free software to save free hardware (and thus commit the same error free software has) than it was to deny the need for white cis straight women to have access to feminism. the answer of course, is for free software to evolve to work more honestly and inclusively with free culture and free hardware, as these are not optional in a just society. insomuch as free software cannot evolve to accomodate these other important goals, free culture and free hardware must continue to take over free software. my only conditions for this are that it not cancel out free software in the process, or turn it into open source, which is a scam putting the needs of monopolies over users. lesbians and trans women did not undermine feminism, they contributed to its evolution and expanded its influence and progress. if free software continues to move forward, it is inevitable (but not necessarily any time soon) that free software is forced to reckon with these matters parallel to its mission. i think its fair to say that the avalanche has already started. but while an avalanche makes itself known at the bottom of a mountain, free software must also change at the top. there has been a great lack of congruence between the needs of free software and the leadership of free software for more than a decade, due mostly to the leaders of free software ignoring and dismissing issues that are ultimately central and vital to the movement and the mission. when this happens to a movement that is increasingly grassroots, missions which started out as top-down are reshaped (for better or worse) by those at the bottom- the avalanche, having once come down, moves back up the mountain. this has been seen in feminism, it can be seen in free software. but more than this, it is absolutely necessary and a non-optional chapter in the future of free software history, in order for free software to keep its promise of liberating users. this is not about negotiating or about compromise. it is about fulfilling the mission, or abandoning it because it was more complicated in reality than in the vision of its founders. license: 0-clause bsd ``` # 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