Why Microsoft Vista is Bad & BadVista Good (But FSF Bad)

I also disagree with some of Richard Stallman’s absolutist position, but to call it a “thinly veiled communist agenda” is beneath idiocy. His ideas of freedom are the polar opposite of communism’s state control.

What I think you are missing is that there is no controlling state running the free software movement and stifling individual initiative by imposing decisions from above. The phenomenal success of free and open source software clearly shows that there is a dynamic operating outside your conception of free market versus state. There is also a lot of money being made off of open source; it requires a different business model. I currently make a comfortable living showing businesses how to cut costs with open source DBRMSs.
Also, take into account that RMS is an ideological extreme. I think most people would agree that there is room for both open source and private business.

I hate communism as much as the next man, and I am also dissenting against the free software position (and do not claim to use “GNU/Linux” and doubt that I would actually join the FSF either), but it is not (at least, purposefully) a communist agenda.

For one thing, RMS doesn’t really stifle commerce intentionally. The GPL allows for a program to be sold for the cost of production and media, and a reasonable service charge. But, because the GPL also requires that the rights of ownership be extended to the purchaser, one of the rights is modification and distribution of either the modified or unmodified product, and as a result, free (”libre” / “as in speech”) software ends up being free (”as in beer”). And money made off of free software is mostly made in commercial support.

Second, RMS started his ethical philosophy in response to his first run-in with a proprietary EULA: he tried to get help with a new application that he needed to adapt to his needs, and a friend who had access to the source code had signed a non-disclosure agreement, and couldn’t help him modify the program or help him get the source code, which prevented his doing with it what he needs. He developed the free software ethic in response to that, because he felt that his friend should have been able to help him, and he could never sign such an agreement himself that causes him to be unable to “help his neighbor” because limiting his ability to help others is unethical.

Third, communism is a political “philosophy” that is usually used to bring the masses to rebellion against anything traditional such as trade and religion, and then enslave them to the “proletariat general.” Free software doesn’t have any goals of which I am aware of doing such. Free software is an ethical position that formed a movement in the ’80’s likely because (as I understand) software was provided generally for free in source code form and/or as part of the computer manufacturer’s service. Because of Microsoft’s anti-competitive practices, the free software and open source software movements actually are virtually the only source of competition in some areas of software. For instance, Microsoft forces its upgrade cycle by having an office suite that is so universal that they can force upgrade cycles through format version compatibility. For instance, if I send you a word 2007 file that you try to open in word 2003, you won’t see it rendered correctly without buying word 2007. But, because of it’s refusal to buy proprietary software, free and open source software has three office suites of which I can know think off the top of my head (there are more): open office, gnome office, and koffice. And the LyX word processor. Besides, if you’re worried about people listening to a single source or group, then I can probably say something about the last election’s results, and the fact that the US has only 2 mainstream political parties. This fact might be lost on most people, but it strikes me as very dangerous (as a Constitutionalist, that is).

Fourth, the goal of Free Software is to provide the rights of ownership to the owner of software as if the owner had just bought a bicycle. It is a common misconception that the term “free” in “free software” means “without cost.” But, to quote a common slogan, the goal is software that is “free as in speech ["libre"], not as in beer.” The goal, as I wrote above, is that, instead of having a proprietary license that [possibly] costs much money for a restrictive license, having rather a product that costs reasonably and brings with it the full rights of ownership. So, instead of spending $300 for MS Word, for which one purchases not Word, but only the right to use Word according to Microsoft’s license, on one machine, and the media whereon it came, except that, if the license be revoked, then the media whereon it came must be destroyed.

Fifth, RMS is not against commercial software: he is against proprietary software. He would argue that anything is proprietary that restricts the right “to help my neighbor.” Free software would be a philosophy that allows for commercial software to coexist on the same computer apart from that. And because of the “rights of ownership” philosophy, the lgpl allows gnu’s compilers to be used for developing commercial software. Otherwise Apple would be up a creek legally. So, in so far as Bible software is concerned, RMS would believe that I should use any SWORD api software like BibleTime. Both e-sword (freeware) and BibleWorks (commercial) is unacceptable to him because they both have EULA’s that restrict their respective user’s rights (so they can’t help their neighbors).

Ultimately, the free software movement started in concern for the EULA, and continues in that concern and likely in outrage against the use of these EULA’s in the majority of the computer industry. And I do believe that $300 per machine is a ridiculous price to pay for a few CD’s and the legal right to use a bloated word processor I may or may not want on one machine. I am outraged at these EULA’s as well, but still would look at as a laughable argument against them, stopping short at the refusal to communicate with proprietary standards and formats. RMS’s movement is an extreme reaction to a common mistjustice, so, I believe that RMS and the FSF is guilty only of extremism in his views. Not a thinly veiled communist agenda, but a rather respectable extremism.