[LAU] Some disturbing news

[Louigi Verona]

Hey Thorsten!

Thank you for your comment. I have not only read Stallman, I have studied
his writings very closely and wrote a large work on his philosophy which
can be found here:
https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a=philosophy_freedoms

Note, the work is largely critical of Stallman's philosophy. And also note
that I am a huge supporter of FLOSS, I just disagree with the moralistic
philosophy behind it.


"The problem starts once you do anything that encourages another person to
use non-free software, because in doing so, they will give up the 4
freedoms."

This is not a convincing argument, because you first need to prove that
these 4 freedoms matter. What problems are they solving? And if these
problems are real - is introducing these specific 4 freedoms the best
solution available? Stallman does not provide evidence and instead engages
in circular reasoning.

A quote from my article on Stallman's writings:

*"In his examples he often seems to define "mistreatment" as software not
respecting the principles of "free" software. But if his goal is to show
that proprietary software is unjust and THUS we need "free" software,
saying that proprietary software is unjust, because it is not "free", does
not prove any injustice. Instead, this is classical circular reasoning -
"free" software is just, because proprietary software is unjust, and it is
unjust, because it is not "free" software."*

I can introduce any number of arbitrary "freedoms" and then say that
someone is immoral because they prevent me from having these freedoms. This
would sound insane.

A good example of arguing for freedoms is the debate on euthanasia. Instead
of just introducing a "freedom to die how one wishes", proponents of
euthanasia demonstrate reasoning, talking about a problem and how
euthanasia can help solve that problem, and what conditions should allow
euthanasia. They are not just saying that anyone who currently disagrees is
immoral.

I don't see Stallman's philosophy give a convincing outline of the problem,
and I don't see him proving that free software can help solve this, and
that there are no other solutions, when there are - regulation. Regulation
that works, I even bring up scientific studies which analyze the impact of
regulation on human right in the software realm. Recent privacy laws in
Europe are a recent example. But even before GDPR Europe's privacy laws
have been much stronger than anything US ever had.



As for your list... I agree with some points, and I will talk about it
below. But some of the things you listed don't make much sense to me, at
least not in the way you've briefly put it.

For instance, you basically say that products that have prices which extend
beyond "making a living" are somehow problematic. Yet, you don't explain on
what basis should we consider high prices to be a problem. Do you find any
expensive product that you cannot immediately buy immoral or pushing "dark
incentives"? If yes - why? If no - then why is it a problem for software,
but not for all other products?

Also, does it mean that proprietary software that has affordable cost would
not be subject to this particular criticism?

You also make a number of intention focused claims, like:

"Newer program versions that write files that can't be read by older
versions (even if no new feature was used), to force all collaborators to
update."
"Keeping deficiencies around that users may hope to be addressed in a
costly update"
"Injecting spyware or other malware"

Is there a statistics-based evidence of that? For instance, do you have
evidence that proprietary vendors specifically keep a deficiency around so
that users are charged for an upgrade later on? Can you provide examples
with evidence that the company building the software did this on purpose?

This statement is unintelligible to me:

"Incentive to create addictive software."

Maybe I don't understand what it means. I am definitely addicted to my FL
Studio, because it allows me to write music easily, does not require me to
constantly think about bugs that I have to report to developers as if I am
a professional tester, and does not crash or freeze. But to me this is a
good thing.

So if you can clear it up for me, I would be grateful - no sarcasm
intended. I really don't understand what you are saying. Some examples
would be nice.


I do agree with a number of things you list, namely:
"Making and keeping things incompatible to potential competition in order
to attain a larger piece of the cake and to maximize user dependency."

This is partially true, although I have both worked for proprietary
software development and also took part in freeware software development
that ended up with proprietary formats. User dependency is not always a
focus of that, there are purely technical reasons to introduce a format and
pure technical reasons to keep it closed, not the least of which is to
avoid the cost of working with an open format, being forced to update the
specs and also be a prisoner to the open format in the face of a desire to
rewrite your software or add significant changes.

But sure, in many cases using a closed format is a vehicle to, say, give
away the service, but keep your IP protected. Is it good? Is it bad? I
think that as long as software development requires limited resources -
effort and time - there needs to be some mechanism that allows people to
monetize software development.

Would I want all software to be completely free, all-inclusive, at no cost
and yet of high quality? You bet. But I currently don't see a way to get
there, and simply making things FLOSS is not a panacea, as it is now clear
after decades of FLOSS. Some things work out, most - don't.

I specifically talk in my article that making things go FLOSS does not
solve the problems of the proprietary world, it just changes the world of
software development to a completely new universe with its own unique
problems. Read about it here:

https://louigiverona.com/?page=projects&s=writings&t=philosophy&a=philosophy_freedoms#3_2

This is a large section, but it should explain where I'm coming from in
this debate.


"Bothering paying customers with license management."

Sure. This is a very recognized economic problem. Since software can be
described as a "club good", which means it is available to a subset of a
population - those who have paid for it, licensing is a mechanism to
exclude free riders and thus solve the free rider problem. But this
involves a cost. The cost falls on the shoulders of both the producer and
the consumer. Obviously, at least some of it makes the prices higher.

Nowadays most software license management is a much smoother experience
than in the past.



Anyway, this is a huge topic. And it is completely fine if you disagree
with me, even if dramatically. But I just want to make sure that it is
clear that my opinion is nuanced and is not based on ignorance of
Stallman's philosophy. And the only reason why reading my arguments might
feel like a defense of corporation is only because Stallman's accusations
are so dramatic. Trying to reduce them to something actually corresponding
to reality immediately creates an impression that if someone does not
consider all IT corporations completely evil, therefore they must be
arguing that they are good or victims or whatever has already been thrown
at my views in this very thread.

But no. Corporations are not victims. But they are not evil either.
Definitely not to the extent that Stallman paints them to be. And that
simply creates an environment which makes it more difficult to enact
measures and regulation that will help. Instead, you get all those "get
completely rid of copyright" or "get completely rid of DRM" or "*all*
proprietary software is *completely* immoral". And nobody can take any of
that seriously.




Louigi.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.linuxaudio.org/archives/linux-audio-user/attachments/20180604/cc0f80e5/attachment.html>