free software resistance

 the cost of computing freedom is eternal vigilance

### tcoyc-the-state-of-free-software *originally posted:* nov 2023 the best way to understand where free software is, would be to compare it to where free software used to be. in the days of grace hopper and cobol, computer software was not copyrightable in the united states- this would not change for decades. computers were rare, they were too expensive and impractical for home users. even by the 1970s it was not unheard of for a school to connect over teletype to a computer miles away, rather than having one on site. its not that computer screens and paperless remote access did not exist by that time, but you could buy several paper teletypes for the price of just one computer screen. as integrated circuits gave way to the 8-bit home computing revolution, televisions became low-quality computer screens and technology brought the price of better screens down to more affordable prices. earlier than this however, software had gone from something people did with a computer to something companies wanted to sell for a computer. software was made copyrightable in countries where it wasnt before, and even before this non-disclosure agreements had attached a stiff penalty to anyone sharing code developed for a company. the era of freely usable code was disappearing, and one person decided to rebuild the culture of free collaboration that he had experienced in campus computer labs. this person of course, was richard stallman. as home computing became increasingly mainstream, stallman set out to recreate unix with a license that let anyone study, use, modify and share the software freely. before this system would become a practical replacement for users, two contenders would enter the arena. one was bsd, which had actually been around in the 1970s, but would soon be in the process of liberating itself from licensing restictions- following a lawsuit against it- and in 1991, linus torvalds announced the kernel that would come to be known as linux. the linux kernel took full advantage of the existing freely licensed software, including the gnu c compiler, gnu general public license, and many other programs designed to make an operating system more useful. while linux was in its infancy, bsd became free and could have solved many problems for stallmans gnu project, but businesses saw an opportunity with linux and it soon overshadowed gnu as well as its mission. by 1998, bruce perens from debian, along with eric raymond founded the open source initiative. within a year, microsoft had started to create memos which treated free software or "open source" as a threat, and perens had resigned from osi complaining that it did too much to overshadow free software. free software and open source had very different priorities, but promised similar goals. open source was more attractive to monopolies and software companies that already produced non-free software, and pitched the idea as a new "development metholodogy" rather than a social movement. free softwares goals were purist- any non-free software is an injustice to the user, while open source shed a purist approach and derided it as unreasonable. both wanted to take credit for liberating the public, but open source practically demanded compromise between users and monopolies. just as microsoft was creating plans for co-opting free software, which would become known as the "halloween documents", open source became a willing vehicle for that cause. this is not how open source would tell it, of course. like so many lies, marketing pitches and double standards, open source wanted to pose as being as idealistic as one competitor and even be looked at as an ally, while misrepresenting both itself and the goals of its opponents. the dual nature of open source was more compatible with marketing and existing tech company goals, who supported- sometimes reluctantly, the rhetoric of open source as the commercial tech press gained interest. free software was the true underdog of the two, while open source became a sort of feisty royal lapdog. but it was the royal lapdog that was able to appeal to the press and find people willing to give the most funding and advertising, so a smarter free software foundation would have done more to educate the public about this dynamic. it did not. instead, it did as much or more to suck up to its co-opters. and while thats far from the entire story, it is more or less what happened- to the detriment of free software. as far as i can tell, the original goal of free software was for all software to be free. free software meant you could freely study, share and modify the software- later, the importance of free "use" of the software was added to the list. the best way to turn software into free software was for its copyright holders to release the source code under the gnu gpl license. the linux kernel was licensed this way, but its source code contained "blobs" of non-free code, used to support hardware. more than ten years before osi was founded, stallman had established the free software foundation. to gain endorsement for a software distribution, it had to follow the "free software distribution guidelines", or fsdg- not to be confused with the "debian free software guidelines", or dfsg- the latter were the inspiration for the open source definition, written by bruce perens. the free software distribution guidelines had a number of requirements for a software distribution (or operating system) to be considered "fully free". the non-free blobs in the linux kernel did not meet these requirements, so it was necessary to create a version of the kernel that had them stripped. i was reluctant to move to such a version, because i believed that much of my hardware would not be supported. for me at least, moving to a blob-free kernel was a welcome step forward, once i tried it. the biggest problem with the fsdg is not what it disallows, though more could be said about the sort of problems that leads to- but what it hasnt thought of yet. free software vs non-free is an ongoing revolution, which cannot be put on "cruise control" while the free software foundations leadership goes quietly into hiding. in 2011, between october 17th and november 4, richard stallman changed a numbered list on his website to bullet points. the biggest change is the addition of the following text, which in just a few years would dramatically change the course of free software: > I do not have a preferred GNU/Linux distro. I recommend all the ethical distros — namely, those that are 100% free software. > I've chosen not to have any preferences among those ethical distros. But I am not in a position to judge them on other criteria: even to try them all would be a lot work that I have no need to do. this text effectively represents a commitment- not just in semantic terms, but practical and proven ones, to stay out of the fight regarding software that meets the rules of the fsdg: > I've chosen not to have any preferences among those ethical distros. there is nothing in the rules against skirting the entire spirit of free software, nor about making software "less free" than it was already, and there is nothing in the rules about a giant corporation co-opting everything that the free software movement spent decades building, just so it could be consolidated into what is effectively a big blob with freely licensed source code thats impossible to use- but, there should have been. because thats exactly what would begin to happen just a few years after stallman made this pledge. having sworn to do nothing about it, and also keeping this promise, stallman was already half-resigned from the fight 12 years ago. a few years later, debian- being upstream from the most popular distros that met the fsdg requirements, started to integrate a project designed to move people away from a diversity of init systems, though calling it an init system is misleading. it would be better described, and for 8 years has acted as a replacement operating system- a system that brings either similar or identical defaults across virtually every gnu/linux distribution, to the point where projects that made a solumn vow to avoid it have had to compromise again, and again, and again. and the fsf has never done anything about this. we are effectively having one corporate way of doing "free" software forced on us, and when we run away screaming, they hunt us down and brag how we will have no choice. later they deny any of this problem they created exists. this has gone on for nearly a decade- and it is being done by a company, or two companies, that are infamous for this level of co-opting and integration. this is certainly not free software. but because its freely-licensed, it is impossible to hold anything OFFICIAL against it. it goes entirely against the spirit of free software- but the spirit of free software is very nearly dead. if this sounds fatalistic, if you believe my goal is to make you give up on some ideal that i believed in, i understand why someone would think thats the idea of what im saying. it isnt. the real problem is that this problem has so many layers, and if you think you can address just one layer and succeed, you are setting yourself up for failure. fixing free software at this point is more like getting into fort knox- you dont just take out a couple guards and let yourself in the door. huge efforts going to great lengths for years have done so only to find the same monopoly going after gcc creeping back into their distribution. this is mandatory software, and making it optional is something that takes more than a team working for years at a time- as evidenced by the teams who have worked for years, only to see the next stage of this software pounding at the door. this is not optional software, where you can simply use something else instead. this is software that destroys choices in its wake. and as ive said before, freedom is better than choice. but if you dont have choices, this is a likely indicator that your freedom is actually quite limited; choices are a typical byproduct of freedom. and the people behind this, do not care if you actually have choices. your "choice" is being consolidated, into "take it or leave it." this is the state of free software. and its also why i abandoned gnu/linux. and the free software foundation will never fight for users again. it has no teeth, it begs your oppressors, and it harasses developers who DO care about your freedom. whether stallman stays at the top (he should not) or leaves, wont make the difference with this. the fsf has no one who can or will fight for you. it has reached the "fundraising and membership" stage of the not-for-profit lifecycle- it cares only about fundraising and membership, and that is all it really can or will fight for. it is defunct. and you can petition the fsf all you want, it is incapable of evolution. if you want free software to continue, you must rebuild it yourself. 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