Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Gratis software being released as proprietary

[Mike Gerwitz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 22:27:28 +0100, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> I have yet to meet these scientists in person (but will this weekend),
> but some common "reasons" I've heard for not releasing gratis software
> as Free (as in Freedom) is that they (1) "want to make sure all users
> get our most up to date and definitive version"; (2) "want to make
> sure the software is well maintained/taken care of"; (3) "afraid of
> their hard work being 'stolen' or misappropriated"; and (4) "sounds
> like too much extra work when our resources are already streched so
> thin".

Scientific communities tend to consider software source code in a manner
similar to methods: in order to reproduce findings, methods must be
provided, and if code is involved, it should also be made
available.  (Ideally; it's an ongoing effort.)  That invalidates
#3.  How is it different than publishing any other methods?

But those arguments demonstrate the most important point: that they are
exerting control over their users.  #1 states that they do not think
that their users are capable of following development of the software
(which is an odd thing to say to a scientific community).  It also
states that they think they know what is best for their users.  Can you
draw an analogy to any proprietary software that they may use?  Windows
10 has been in the news: they think that it is best to provide their
users with the most up-to-date software, so much so that certain
versions offer no ability to opt out.[0]

If they allow redistribution of their software gratis, #1 can still be
circumvented anyway by obtaining software from your peers (a good
thing).

#2 is a fallacy.  Who is to say that someone else can't make their
software even better?  Have they never improved upon someone else's
work?  Have they ever, as scientists, adapted someone else's work for
their own needs, that maybe were different from the original
author/researcher's?  Of course they have.  And how would allowing
others to study and modify the code affect maintenance?  That is an
internal affair (project management).

#4 is a copout.  In that case---and this is a good idea
regardless---there are plenty of resources that you can provide them
with to help them to understand the importance of software
freedom.[1][2]

This is sometimes an alien and uncomfortable concept to others.  When
suggesting that software be liberated, I usually offer to help.  That
help might not be in the form of code: it helps to have a guide into
unfamiliar territory.

[0]: https://www.fsf.org/windows
[1]: 
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/user-liberation-watch-and-share-our-new-video
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

>
> For (4) above, this is especially true for non-profit organisations
> since their resources truly are very limited, and they are afraid of
> more burden (I know Free Software is actually liberating, I'm just
> saying that's what some people are afraid of). For (3), obviously a
> Free Software license makes sure that the original developer is fully
> attributed. Even then, I wonder what would be some good responses to
> (1) through (4)? Also, I don't think "Freedom is paramount, nothing
> else matters" is a sufficient catch all response.
>
> Another possible problem is that these scientists might have actually
> hired an outside developer to write this software, and maybe in the
> hiring contract the developer made the software proprietary? Is this
> something that might have happened? If so, would these conservation
> scientists be able to change this?
>
> The above (1) to (4) are some responses from them that I can
> anticipate, but what are some other common "concerns" about switching
> to Free Software that I can prepare for? Speaking of which, I wonder
> if it'll be nice to make a list of such frequently asked questions
> about Free Software for makers of both gratis and for-sale software?
> Perhaps it can go on the Libreplanet of FSF websites somewhere? (sorry
> it it exists, I confess I haven't been to those sites in a while) If
> the list doesn't exist, how can we work together to compile it?
>
> Regardless of your personal opinion on wildlife conservation, I think
> it is safe to say that these people are very well meaning and
> sincerely want to do good in this world. They are not greedy/evil
> corporations who want to control our lives! The problem is many people
> just don't have the digital literacy (I promise I don't mean this in a
> condescending way!) to appreciate the issues around software freedom
> and why they should care... :( So what is a nice and respectful way to
> bring up this problem, and achieve tangible, positive change? This
> will be my first time discussing Free Software with someone actively
> involved in software development (though I've talked to many general
> "end users" about it before), so I'd really appreciate any suggestions
> you have. And sorry about the long message!
>
>

- -- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
http://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=WsYd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----