[lukifer]

I'll tell one thing which won't solve it: religious zealotry and advocations for everyone in the world to commit to FSF purity.

Open software advocates should treat closed and controlled systems in the same fashion that techies implore content creators to treat piracy: an unstoppable force of nature that must be accepted and competed with, rather than feared and demonized.

Also underlying both issues: the need for improved business models to sustain free software and open content. People like to get paid, and t-shirts + donations doesn't always cut it.

[Stormbringer]

Disclaimer: I'm no RMS fanboy by a long stretch of the imagination.

What you're saying is that they should throw their arms up in the air and say "welp, that's how the real world works in reality, so might as well give up and accept it".

But I think you're being unfair. The normal open advocates don't fear and demonize closed source. They may secretly pity it, they may secretly hate it, I don't know.

The RMS vision of open source, when you get right down to it, is that of two sandpits. In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do?

If someone comes from the closed source world and wants to play in the open source sandpit, they have to play by the rules (sharing and openness).

I think RMS gets frustrated sometimes, because he doesn't want the other people playing in the open playpit giving their stuff away to the people in the selfish (no sharing) playpit. I think his thinking is that it would mean that there is less incentive for them "over there" to examine and repent of their selfish ways.

Sometimes the people in the no-sharing playpit have rich relatives that buy them nice toys for Christmas. But RMS views that as okay, if the open playpit turns out to have a need for one of those, he is confident that the open source people have the ability to make something even better, if they can be bothered to do so.

[lukifer]

I am, admittedly, attacking a straw man, though in the case of RMS and a few others, it's not far off from reality.

> In one sandpit, everyone shares their toys. In the other sandpit... who cares what they do?

That's the attitude I mean. The fact is, a lot of people care: engineers, customers, and investors are making really interesting things happen in that sandpit. For FOSS advocates to avoid the development happening there is a hindrance to progress, not in aid of it. Maybe if RMS let himself own an Android or iPhone (perhaps with SIM removed), he would understand why these new platforms are a big deal, and be better equipped to create truly open equivalents, instead of insisting on living in his purist tech world of the 70's (wget-ing web pages? really?).

Closed source isn't evil. It's selfish. And we expect a certain level of selfishness from both individuals and companies. I fully support shifting our values in tech and elsewhere to a greater esteem for community and the commons. But calls for all software to be open and free is unrealistic: many people can't or won't create value without a selfish incentive. Time spent advocating against closed platforms is better spent making open platforms better.

[Stormbringer]

I think that RMS is quite happy to cut all ties with the closed source world in order to build a brave new one that is an idealised programmers paradise. I look at the GPL and it seems to me the clear intent there is to have this separation, this "software apartheid" if you will.

You and I on the other hand, might look at it and say "okay, but how do these brave new programmers eat? Who pays their rent?" Back in the day, RMS used to just do some hand waving and point out that if (sorry: "once") the economic benefits of open source are realised that companies will do this because they realise it is in their best interests.

I'd be delighted to be wrong, but it seems that only a tiny minority of Open Source developers are actually hired by enlightened companies to work on their Open Source projects full time. Google being an obvious big contributor in that regard. But here's the thing with RMS, he is such an extremist that even Google's contribution isn't enough. He doesn't want a measly couple of buillion dollars worth of commitment, he wants it all, the heart mind body and soul must be dedicated to the cause or you are unworthy.

The sandbox metaphor breaks down when we look at one of the things that RMS objects to about Google, that they use Open Source, and they provide 'free(ish)' software services in return, but because those web/software services sit behind the "big-iron" curtain Google are never obligated to release their changes and improvements. Hence the GPL becomes ineffective in that scenario.

The problem of course is the risk of ghetto-isation of the open source developers. You and I might be reluctant to leap in boots and all because of petty economic concerns and so keep at least one foot in the closed source world. This lets us see lots of exciting things happening there. But don't forget that there is lots of stuff happening in the open source world. Closed source may look more exciting now, but RMS is taking the long position that in the end his legions of trusty hackers working together will create something much better than the corporations all doing their own small secret things.

And something genuinely spectacular happened last year. Last year was (finally) the long predicted, long awaited year of Linux hitting the mainstream. Except of course it wasn't Linux on the desktop, but Linux on mobile (Android).

Unfortunately, as open as it might be, it seems to me that Android is deeply flawed as far as alignment with the GNU philosophy of openness, what with the carriers doing all kinds of horrible things (some behind the scenes, some brazenly out in public). I hear stories of Microsoft making more money off Android than the do off Windows mobile (or whatever it is called this week), simply by threatening legal action, and patents of dubious parentage. Not to mention some of the openness being more open than others (e.g. Google releasing the code to some partners but not others, and not the public)

[stfp]

Stallman is a good extreme, in that he creates and lives by an idealized system (call it "pure" if you want), which enables a lot of less ideal, more real-life versions to exist in between his and the "commercial software" world, without any negative side-effect to the world at large.

[HalibetLector]

I used to think this too, until I realized something I didn't thoroughly understand until I read the OP. The reason Stallman wants a "pure" system with no closed source code is because if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you. Or tracking you or restricting how you use your data.

Seen through the argument I just made, when you say closed and controlled systems are an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted, what you're really saying is digital spying/tracking/restriction is an unstoppable force of nature and must be accepted. It really is an all or nothing proposition at this point.

[cschwarm]

I'd like to remark that your argument is not valid: To know that your system won't spy on you, all you need is open code (transparency). You don't need it to be free.

Theoretically, you can have a completely unfree system that is completely open at the same time.

[HalibetLector]

I don't see how that invalidates my argument. I don't mention paid vs unpaid at all, just closed and open.

[cschwarm]

I didn't mention paid vs. unpaid, either. I was speaking about 'free' as in 'free software' vs. proprietary. My point was that you can have a proprietary system that is open.

For reference, this was the argument I was replying to:

> … if there's even one proprietary bit of executable code, you can't guarantee your system isn't spying (or capable of spying) on you.