Should non-free software be bundled with free operating systems?
The amazing Pamela Jones of Groklaw (you can already tell which side I'm going to take in this debate) recently published a scathing critique of Linspire's decision to spin off a Fedora-style "community" version of their operating system, which they call "freespire", which contains proprietary software (notably hardware drivers). Linspire's Kevin Carmony has now responded to the criticism from Groklaw and others.
Carmony's argument smacks of the "Fox News fallacy" that if you take the midpoint between any two extreme opposing views, that point must represent what is fair, reasonable and objectively true. That is, if you say the sky is blue, and I say it is yellow, it must therefore be green.
To my mind, there are compelling arguments in favour of not offering users the "convenience" of bundling proprietary software.
- Users should know if and when they are installing software that compromises their freedom, and should be confident they can't accidentally install non-free software.
- It should be easy to redistribute free software. A free-as-in-zero-cost installation CD which includes proprietary software may be legal to aquire from the originating organisation, but is likely to be no more legal to copy and redistribute than a Windows CD.
- Users who don't know about the distinction between "free-as-in-beer" and "free-as-in-speech" software have a right to be informed about the issues.
- Users who know but don't care about the above distinction are adequately catered to by "non-free" software package repositories and a plethora of convenience scripts for downloading common zero-cost non-free software from proprietary vendors.
Carmony argues that after years of holding fast against proprietary video drivers, the "open source vegans" have made no progress convincing hardware vendors to release free drivers. I think here he's selecting the data to favour his conclusions. Not too long ago, one could have said the same about printer vendors. Now Hewlett-Packard and Epson are leading a growing pack of companies putting significant resources into releasing free ("as-in-speech") drivers for their hardware.
Thoughts, anyone?
Sponsored by:
A reality check
(I wish I could work out how to get this thing formatted without a lot of messing about.)
I am a pragmatist, not a Linux jihadist. If something is subject to copyright, that fact should be published but if it can be distributed along with free software that doesn't work properly or as well without it, I say include it.
It's idiotic of all these tin-pot distros trying to blackmail vendors into catering for their puny percentage of the market. They need to get real about a lot of things, particularly their own (lack of) importance.
Pragmatism
Sorry about the irritating bugs with the WYSIWYG text editor widget on the site. It's on my todo list to fix this, honestly.
Eric Raymond, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), and author of the celebrated "the Cathedral and the Bazaar" (and incidentally of the somewhat less celebrated opinions that black people are inherently violent and stupid and that "the U.S. has the right to commit deliberate cultural genocide" and "civilize the barbarians at the point of a gun") has recently expressed a willingness to "compromise" with regards to drivers for various popular hardware devices. My point of view (or "jihad", if you will) is that this compromise isn't one which the software distributor is necessarily free to make. It's the hardware vendors (or the less enlightened ones, at least) who choose to keep how their hardware works a secret, and who enforce this secrecy through the invocation of copyright, patents, and DMCA-like laws, making it impossible to freely and legally write and/or distribute software that works with their products. Why they should want to limit the potential market for their hardware in this way is an interesting question, but the pragmatic issue is why should we as consumers buy a product from somebody who refuses to tell us how it works, and who will legally prosecute us if we try to find out for ourselves? I can't think of any domain outside of computer hardware where buying a product on the condition that you must never know how to use it is regarded as an acceptable deal.
I can choose from quite a range of different portable audio players that communicate with PCs via standard data transfer protocols, and I can buy music from lots of different publishers who don't impose technical restrictions on my ability to "media-shift" the recording I've bought. If I buy an iPod and buy some music from iTunes, the reason why I can't easily transfer files from my free operating system to my music player, or for that matter can't put the music I've just bought onto a CD to listen to in the car (regardless of what operating system I use), is simply because I've made a couple of stupid purchases.
These products, no matter how popular they may be, are fundamentally broken, or "defective by design", as are data files that you can only read with software licensed from a single vendor, or CDs or DVDs that you legally purchased but can only play on devices approved by the publisher.
Perhaps this needs clarification
There are possibly two issues.
1. The rights and obligations of the end user. This annoying person should know where he/she stands.
As one of said annoying persons, I want my hardware to work as well as possible; it still is not as functional as mainstream proprietorial software can make it.
The two parts - open and closed - should, I can see now, be differentiated so that I know what can be passed on and what cannot be passed on.
2. The rights and obligations of suppliers.
First, (not necessarily in order of importance) the proprietorial vendors.
They should have to comply with the same obligations as anyone else who takes advantage of and builds upon open source material. On the other hand, they are in the game for the money and no one will benefit if they cannot be recompensed for their efforts. Can Linux, realistically, prosper without having these companies on side?
Secondly, the open source developers. These are the people whose position I do not understand. I do understand that they lose motivation if the fruits of their labour can be locked up by the proprietorial vendors. This article reminded me of the subject.
Perhaps something along the lines of the Debian approach is correct. I still think that business over the Mozilla trademarks is very silly. It does not help the cause when a major distro turns on a strong supporter of open source software.
But, maybe at this stage of the game, you have to decide whether you are in or you are out. It'll take longer but free software will be and remain free, not a hybrid. I have no idea whether we are talking my lifetime or never or somewhere in between.
The only way I see to accelerate change is for the distros to get their heads out of the sand and realise that they need to have some common standards before Linux-related software development becomes an attractive proposition, even when tied to obligations to free software development.
Most so-called distros seem to consist of one or two developers with an itch. How viable is that business model? Kanotix is looking very shaky and most distros are at risk of the same fate.
We'll all be rooned.
reality or submission?
In my opinion, Free software and Free mechanisms for interfacing with hardware is the best model for everyone. I think that when a company manufactures a device it comes with buttuns that have been designed for human interface. Sometimes the standards are not fully thought out when people with particular disabilities come to use the device. Simarlily, hardware should be built and designed to speak to iso'ed concepts about the software devices that interface with it. If someone comes along and finds that they can do their particular job by pushing those buttons in an sequence that the vendor had not thought of, that does not hurt the vendor or any other user. Full Freedom like Matthew is talking about, is the best agenda but we cant get it going if their is not enough pressure to counter the momentum of the status quo.
I am in no jihad, but I do want to be informed so that my social and consumer existence reflects my beliefs. I do not want software that compromises my beliefs to be included with my distrobution. If I just accept this, in the long term there is no pressure to change the status quo and even if it is not the best way for the vendor, it will remain dominant.
I am interested in something Suse is doing with OpenSuse, without being sure yet how I feel. They are making proprietry software available on their cd's but they do not install by default and they are seperated into a catorgory clearly identified as unFree software. At least in this situation I am empowered to make an informed decision.
Bundling
The major problem with distributions that bundle proprietary software on their installation media is that while they have licenced the ability to legally distribute this software from the copyright holder, this licence does not necessarily (or even very often) trickle down to users. So I can get an install CD of Freespire, for instance, without infringing copyright, but I can't then copy or share that CD without breaking the law. The CD may contain predominately free software, but it is not in itself free.
Of course in the real world, people will copy and share collections of software which include proprietary drivers, and there's virtually nothing that the copyright holders can do to stop this. So, as I remarked earlier, why persist with proprietary licensing terms which can only diminish the potential market for their hardware, or turn their customers into criminals?
A cynical person might suspect that these parties are reserving the right to in the future exercise litigation as a revenue stream, either selectively targeting cashed-up redistributors, or embarking on indiscriminate RIAA-style legal action against thousands of ordinary users who might be using their products in ways they haven't specifically authorised. There are other possible explanations as well.
Whatever the case, I wouldn't feel safe touching these distros with an absurdly long telescopic barge pole.
Matthew.
turning customers into criminals
re: bundled nonfree
what i believe as far as bundling nonfree software is, that in reality, the average user (most experienced linux users aside) has no clue whether something is or isn't free, or how it may affect their use of software, media or anything, what i believe should be the norm is that free operating systems are exactly that and shouldn't be bundled with any nonfree software.
I believe that the user should at all times be given the choice of installing it if he/she so desires, and given clear indication in the docs to give them an idea of how their user experience will differ by installing it or leaving it out. They should have access to information and the means to install it if they so wish.
Myself.....I hate proprietary software, but i have every single nonfree codec i can get installed out of pure necessity, I hope over time this will change, i guess it depends on peoples uptake of free software and their use of free codecs.
LLike i said though, most people moving to linux have no idea of whats free and what isn't and expect to have windows, only have someone else pay for it, thats their idea of free, it needs education.