[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] FSF's communication, ethical discussion in con

From: Pen-Yuan Hsing
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] FSF's communication, ethical discussion in consumerism, why software freedom matters
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:52:25 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

> Consumerism is designed to exclude ethical discussion.

I suspect the same thing. Can you elaborate a bit more on why you think this is 
the case? Is there academic discussion on the definition of consumerism and the 
ethics (or lack thereof) behind it?? I'd love to read about this.

> Eben Moglen's talks are consistently excellent.

I confess I didn't know about this person, but reading your message, and 
reading his Wikipedia page, I think I should really check out his work. Do you 
have specific recommendations on which of his talks to listen to first?

> Richard Stallman's recent Slashdot interview 

Thanks for pointing this out, I recently read the interview, too. I agree that 
RMS replied to the first question regarding "monetization" with some fair 

With that said, I was disappointed that >75% of the response (word-wise) was 
centred around the use of the word "monetization". According to Wiktionary [1], 
the word can mean "To convert something (especially a security) into currency". 
I believe this is the meaning that RMS was responding to. However, Wiktionary 
also states that "monetize" can mean "To make a business activity 
profit-generating, particularly in computer and internet-related activities." 
Isn't it possible that this is what the original question was referring to? 
They referred to RMS's own essay on selling free software [2], which explicitly 
states "if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well 
charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a 
good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit 
from it" (which incidentally I just quoted in my other post about education 
:p). If that's the meaning the original question is referring to, then I wi
sh RMS could have elaborated more on ways to make that profit. With his current 
reply, I think that might put off people who were asking an honest question. I 
remember an earlier post on this list which says that it is important to assume 
goodwill. I think that applies to this question as well!

Now suppose that first question in the Slashdot interview really did mean 
"monetise" as in "To convert something (especially a security) into currency". 
Couldn't this still simply mean wanting to make money off of distributing free 
software? RMS replied that "Implicit in that word is the idea that you want to 
turn everything into money. The only point in writing a program is to turn it 
into money. Feh!". But I don't think the question implied turning *everything* 
into money, or that the *only* point in programming is to make money, which 
further suggests to me that it actually refers to simply making a profit.

Next, RMS said when you use the word "monetizing", "your thoughts have become 
twisted in a direction that will lead you to be a parasite". This assumes that 
the one who asked the question is using a certain meaning of the word 
"monetize", but is that 100% clear in the original question?

Now, I am just as upset as the next person on this list that some software 
companies have perverted the distribution of software and made profit from it 
by restricting users' freedoms. What I am saying is simply that the response to 
that first Slashdot interview question assumes certain things about the asker 
that I think are not fully justified.

In addition, while I don't disagree with the points that RMS made in that 
response, I think it is another example of how sometimes proponents of free 
software could present the case better. Yes, free software is right and just, 
but saying things like "I have to exert all my self control to respond civilly 
after seeing the word", "Feh!", "your thoughts have become twisted in a 
direction that will lead you to be a parasite", or just assuming what the asker 
meant with one word is not effective communication. Again, like I said the 
asker could easily have meant something else with the word "monetise", and also 
that we should assume goodwill. I would suggest a response along the lines of: 
"Thanks for your question, but I'd like to point out that 'monetise' can be a 
problematic word because it can mean [insert negative meaning here]. I hope 
that's not what you meant! If you are referring to making a profit from the 
development and distribution of free software, here are several ways you can
 do it effectively." followed by more elaboration on ways to sustainably fund 
free software (more than only 25% of the response!). To make the points that 
RMS made in the response, I am not convinced that you need to say things like 
"Feh!", "your thoughts are twisted", "[you're a] parasite", etc. Those words 
might only serve to antagonise people (who, again, might have asked an honest 
question) and push them further away from free software. Perhaps this is what 
Terry meant by "some lack of people skills contributes to remaining 
exclusionary through alienating many by not understanding and embracing 



On 2015-09-22 04:36, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>> The FSF has incredible geniuses who understand code, technologies,
>> future directions and social implications. Their philosophies are
>> incredible, however some lack of people skills contributes to remaining
>> exclusionary through alienating many by not understanding and embracing
>> people, varying intellects, marketing and rates of comprehensive shifts
>> to new philosophical adoptions.
> I'm not clear on precisely what you're referring to and I don't see examples 
> of your point. If you don't like what the FSF says, it would be fine to say 
> that you don't agree with it. But you should point to what specifically you 
> disagree with and explain why. I don't know how many people you are speaking 
> for when you say "many" and I don't see any examples of what your 
> criticizing. What did the FSF say when you tried telling them specifically 
> what messages you didn't like and how you thought they should pose those 
> issues instead? They're hiring a Deputy Director, and I think that job would 
> include plenty of chances to explain software freedom better.
> I've found the FSF to be forthright and to not suffer fools gladly (which 
> requires a clarity I appreciate). They rightly speak up about their cause, 
> write very clearly, and when people use language that frames an issue in a 
> way they don't agree with their representatives point it out. Richard 
> Stallman's recent Slashdot interview 
>  has an example of this in the first Q&A -- a response from Stallman where he 
> pointed out what was wrong with framing an issue in terms of "monetization". 
> Stallman's response struck me as a well-stated and entirely fair rebuttal to 
> an attempt to justify bad behavior because it might make more money than 
> earning money ethically. Eben Moglen's talks are consistently excellent. 
> They're packed with detail and they really earn a re-read/re-listen, but 
> they're eminently understandable even for non-technical people I've played 
> them for over the air on community radio (or so 
> the listeners who call me tell me). I went to an FSF gathering some years ago 
> and Moglen's talk alone made the trip worthwhile for my travel companion.
> I think most people haven't begun to contemplate software freedom not because 
> the message of software freedom was put to them somehow indelicately, but 
> because the message of software freedom hasn't been put to them at all. It's 
> hard to repeat a message as frequently as the billionaire proprietors repeat 
> their ads, or even as frequently as open source supporters say some 
> proprietary software is okay.
> We're constantly told that our proper role in society is to buy something. 
> This immediately circumscribes us as consumers rather than citizens. This 
> means reducing people to accepting choices set out for them (if they can 
> afford it) and never discussing doing what's just, ethical, and beneficial 
> for society such as pointing out systemic corruption (what if all the choices 
> are bad?), inequity (what if some people are too poor to participate even as 
> consumers?). Consumerism is designed to exclude ethical discussion. When I 
> try to behave ethically by purchasing the most ethical option available, I 
> usually face greenwashing or I find I'm outspent by the wealthy who want 
> unethical results. The narrow terms of debate are set up this way on purpose, 
> not by accident, and this makes for a very one-sided way to live.
> For example, in popular computing my choices come down to two nonfree 
> software distributors and a "choice" of which proprietor's interest to cater 
> to. When viewed from a perspective of software freedom, that's no choice at 
> all. Any differences between the proprietors are overwhelmed by the 
> similarities that one is basically picking who gets to keep me from having 
> software freedom. All of the important questions about software freedom are 
> immediately outside the allowable range of debate when the ends are staked 
> out by proprietors. There's simply no room left for a serious discussion of 
> ethics; other related issues (such as computer security) are off-limits too 
> as one can't have computer security without software freedom.
> But I know better things are possible because I can look at history. 
> Apparently through hard work and political insistence free software hackers 
> built a better system: there was a time when GNU was not a complete operating 
> system and I had to run GNU programs on a nonfree OS. Now GNU/Linux is a 
> complete self-hosting OS, thanks in part to Linus Torvalds distributing the 
> Linux kernel under a free software license, and the Linux-libre team for 
> distributing a free version of the Linux kernel. I didn't have hardware on 
> which I could run a completely free OS. Now I can buy hardware which runs a 
> free BIOS thanks to all the reverse engineering and work I'm probably not 
> fully aware of. Sure, I have to accept that things take time to develop and I 
> can't use the latest hardware in freedom, but things are demonstrably better 
> now than they were just 20 years ago. I don't want those gains to be lost for 
> me or anyone else who uses a computer.
> There are, quite literally, life and death issues one can resolve with 
> software freedom (the recent VW emissions fraud discovery, and keeping people 
> safe from spying while they're telling us important details about what's 
> really happening like Snowden did, to name a couple recent examples). Saving 
> lives, preserving privacy & civil liberties, and introducing ethics into 
> people's use of computers strikes me as far too important to grant anyone 
> social permission to dismiss a message because they don't like how it was 
> delivered instead of objecting to what the message said. If the discussion 
> raises questions, by all means, ask! And feel free to state your mind, but 
> expect to justify your statements too.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]