muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### sort-of-against-software-tyranny
*originally posted:* may 2021
a response to "Against Software Tyranny" by lxo, https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/against-software-tyranny.en.html
i was actually consulted on this article, but that was clearly of no benefit to oliva or myself. ive had more luck with that on other titles. but at least i will comment on what was finally published.
the article starts out fine:
> Imposing substantial constraints on users' running, modifying or sharing software subjugates users and exerts control over their digital lives through unjust, tyrannical powers. Software freedom amounts to not being subjugated nor coerced by software tyrants.
i believe we are in complete agreement there.
> The Free Software movement fights for the abolition of software tyranny. We denounce and combat threats to users' autonomy, and software tyrants' attempts to wield power over users.
s/fights for/is supposed to fight for/
s/denounce/sort of denounce/
even stallman himself has taken it easy on denouncing and combating threats to users' autonomy for at least ten years now, and he basically invented it. i try not to give him too much flak about it (rather just the right amount) because he not only invented it, but so far no other single person has ever done more in that regard.
so we can talk about huge mistakes, though nobody has ever surpassed him. the solution to this is for several people to get together and pick up where he left off. then the only trick is finding a small army (a bit like dumbledores) that can (and will) honestly do what he managed to do. credit where credit is due, i think. but we can talk about huge mistakes, and still need to.
some of the people who talk about stallmans mistakes are absolutely bullshit, and just looking for an excuse to peddle more open source propaganda. its a common hazard. short of proof, a good sign (one i consider necessary) is that people who criticise stallman for actual mistakes will also defend him against petty irrelevant bullshit. hearing someone talk about freedom while participating in extreme cancel culture is as far as they get-- i write those people off as useless to the cause and go look for someone honest instead.
total hypocrisy is a dealbreaker; narcissists on a power trip who only pretend to care about freedom are an incredible and proven threat to the movement. i was talking about this before they ousted stallman, and i predicted that he would be ousted by these people. that isnt the first time (in the past decade) that the movement was set back for more than a year. for fucks sake, people.
> Open Source Software was introduced as a marketing campaign for Free Software. However, by focusing on the practical and economic advantages to be derived from collaborative development, it ended up campaigning to enlighten despots, rather than to overthrow software tyrants. The campaign encourages software tyrants to voluntarily give up, when it suits them, some of their tyrannical powers over software, and thus over users. This marketing campaign misses the point. Though enlightened, former tyrants remain despots. Users don't deserve freedom only when that's advantageous to despotic rulers.
hes not wrong there.
> Trade secrets and copyrights were the earliest powers that software tyrants relied on to control users. Denying software users the rights to modify, distribute and copy the software they use to do their computing renders them subjugated, divided and helpless. Granting copyright licenses that allow these uses, and arranging for users to have access to source code enable a software despot to qualify as a software supplier that respects users' freedoms.
which is sort of a contradiction in terms-- i assume thats what was intended, the irony of a "despot" that "qualifies" as respecting users freedoms. the article isnt done with such irony though.
incidentally, if you have a fake movement that amounts to corporate astroturfing and goes soft on despots simply because they follow the letter of the law on a small handful of rules, youre going to attract a lot of wannabe despots. just saying.
> Copyright licenses are unilateral grants of permissions for behaviors that copyright law reserves to the copyright holder. To qualify as Free Software licenses, they have to allow recipients, individually and collectively, (a) to study the source code, to see what the software does, (b) to adapt it so that it does what users wish, (c) to copy and distribute it, with or without modifications, and (d) to run it for any purpose. To qualify as an Open Source License, the criteria are stated differently, but they are intended to be equivalent, so OSS licenses are also FS licenses, and vice-versa, with no more than a few accidental exceptions.
accidental? those were no accidents, they were pushed for, essentially lobbied for. already the wording is starting to grant the benefit of the doubt where it is not warranted. but thats what open source is all about!
> All FS/OSS licenses, from public domain emulation to the strongest copyleft, have the following in common: they enable users to do whatever they wish with and to the software, and to have as full control as they wish over their own copies thereof. FS/OSS licenses cannot vary in this regard: respect for the essential freedoms is a strict requirement.
so if you want to attack free software while using one of these strict licenses, youll have to either find or insert a loophole, or youll have to find some other aspect of free software the tent of which you can get a camels nose into. i mean, its been done, several times-- but its a lot of work.
> "Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html
that sounds a lot like autonomous decision making. which is certainly a freedom i think is important, but its worth mentioning that autonomy (one aspect of it, at least) is being described here, when there are many different angles that the word "freedom" can be approached from.
> They may differ, however, in what they allow recipients to do to each other, that is, in what powers (over others) they transfer to recipients. While FS/OSS lax permissive licenses transfer to recipients powers that enable them to become software tyrants over other users, copyleft (see below) defends users from potential software tyrants, by not transferring any such powers to any recipients.
this is true, but i think it is slightly overstated. my position on copyleft is that if it actually keeps software more free its good, and if it doesnt then its pointless.
i do not think copyleft is pointless. i think it probably keeps software more free. but i also dont think its as simple as that.
in theory, copyleft is basically always better-- and permissive licenses are basically always inferior. in practice, it probably depends. the fsf for example, states more than one category of situation where copyleft is likely pointless:
* where the source code is very short (i strongly agree with this)
* where the source code is already under a permissive license (i disagree, strongly)
* certain strategic exceptions the fsf has explored in the past (theyre probably good ones)
i quibble about this not for the sake of quibbling itself, but because if even the fsf finds good reasons to make exceptions, we should probably be sceptical whenever someone advocates (or even implies) a hard rule about copyleft that leaves these points out.
in the free software movement, especially close to the top, there is a frequent assumption being acted on that people already know these things and are familiar with these details. any time you talk about a hard line about copyleft, you should note the existing exceptions.
"lax permissive licenses transfer to recipients powers that enable them to become software tyrants over other users"
it really should be noted that there are other ways to fight software tyranny besides making the license a copyleft one. this is dramatically overstated by eric raymond, and i recently berated someone for who was arguing against the gpl on a similar note; "its time to say goodbye to the gpl" or some foolishness like that-- but its better to have people who understand how and why (and when) copyleft works really well than to simply have them accept it as dogma.
the problem with dogma of course is that people who do the right things for reasons they understand tend to invite better outcomes than people who do the right things just because. for people who believe in the letter of the law, this is a paradox or a contradiction, but for people who believe in the spirit of the law this is common sense reasoning.
its generally better to teach why and how, than just what-- and this is not a nitpick. its substantially better education one way, and barely worth calling education otherwise.
> Choosing the copyright license that will govern uses of a program is power, not freedom, because it affects mainly others. It amounts to wielding the power of copyright. Denying users' essential freedoms through this power is software tyranny. For FSers, such a use would be anathema; for OSSers, it's a poor choice that an unenlightened despot might make.
sure, alright.
my original disappointment with this article is that it started out with the strong notion of NOT being subjugated nor coerced by software tyrants. but it was only a segue into some examples that are frankly, overplayed.
if you played the same bach concerto non-stop, every single day, i would not vote to get rid of a masterpiece like that. i would simply elect that you play other really excellent music as well. i was very much hoping that the strong start to olivas articles was going to talk about things that we DONT hear all the time, things we DONT hear enough of. i was more and more disappointed as i read on.
there are so many problems that free software has right now. the ongoing lobbying AGAINST copyleft is surely one of them, and i wouldnt complain about it being brought up if it was on a list of examples-- but to make it the primary example is exactly what led us here, to a situation where our wiliest opponents have found ways to co-opt even gpl-licensed software, which oliva tried to get me to believe he understood as a problem, and told me he was considering writing an article about it.
clearly this isnt that article, but i suppose he thought this was important. i wish it were my only disappointment about the piece. i consider it a great title, wasted. a more accurate title would be "against at least 12% of software tyranny" but i think mine has a better ring to it.
i wish the article really were against software tyranny, though. lets drudge on with this thing:
> Copyleft is a licensing practice that, besides respecting the essential freedoms, also defends them for all users of a program, by refusing to transfer to intermediaries any power over other users.
thats not really true though, and its untrue in an important way. software itself, until it is modified, may constitute "power over other users". and when stallman and his closest followers stop judging software on anything but the license, and people start doing the following:
1. adding all kinds of features that oppress users
2. making the software harder to edit and maintain
3. moving the sources to platforms like github, that add lock-in
power is slipping out of users hands, in ways that the license does not (and really, cannot) do anything about.
in theory of course, YOU CAN JUST CHANGE it.
if someone makes you a salad with an ingredient you are allergic to, you have the freedom to pick out all the little bits that you would otherwise have a reaction to. this is true of binaries, of minified "source" and of extremely bastardly-designed software (or basically sabotaged software that serves monopolies) the likes of which we have not often seen, and yet its already here.
in practice, some projects deliberately make this more and more difficult. the license says youre free, but these people are dicks who hate (and try to limit) your freedom anyway-- regardless of whether the gpl or even agpl is used.
but thats a nice segue to the next part of the article. oh wait, still more stuff about licenses... i fucking hate this article.
another alternative title: "everything free software thinks its getting right about free software".
...but isnt.
> FS proponents most often prefer stronger copyleft licenses, because they (both proponents and licenses) avoid empowering software tyrants. OSS proponents, however, are far more diverse in their preferences, reflecting their deference to despots' divine right, best intentions, and diverse motivations and strategies.
honestly, thats an oversimplification that assumes bad faith. and in many situations, im IN FAVOUR of assuming bad faith. but thats exactly why its so important to know the exceptions even the fsf itself makes-- so you dont accuse innocent people just to go after the many who are being dicks. im saying that most of them are dicks, and we may want to avoid them-- though accusing people AUTOMATICALLY over doing something that has legitimate exceptions NOTED by the fsf themselves, is a terrible idea.
i hoped oliva would add something educational-- even a single line or parenthetical comment so that people dont assume the fsf has a double standard on this (in most ways, they dont) but im afraid his excessively (inaccurately) strong line about copyleft will only confuse and mislead people about the fsfs actual stance (and reasoning) on it.
essentially, oliva rewrote the fsfs own guidelines in crayon. but i tried to stop him, and it wouldnt have taken more than a minute to fix.
this doesnt bode well at all for the future, when oliva is (most likely) the 2nd ever chief gnuisance. i can tell you right now, hes going to be a bumbler of a gnuisance when he takes over the gnu project-- like a bull in a china shop. and tragically, he is probably the most qualified of anyone presently maintaining gnu. i hope to find someone in the gnu project who is better suited, so that i can make people more aware of their merits, though i feel confident oliva will eventually take the reins regardless.
> Software tyrants, in turn, entice OSS developers and attempt to strongarm FS ones into adopting non-copyleft licensing practices that thereby enable software tyrants to wield absolute power over users.
this much at least, is true.
> Despite our differences, FS and OSS proponents can often collaborate in developing software, especially when it is licensed under strong copyleft licenses.
reload and aim at the other foot. if there are two things oliva has already missed, those are:
1. copyleft doesnt always suit any purpose whatsoever (except symbolically) in 100% of scenarios. it could be close to 100%, but it is less than 100.
2. copyleft (by itself) is insufficient in a number of ways, but the fsf tragically (and practically to the demise of its objectives) chooses to focus stubbornly and excessively on the license.
bonus point: when a non-profit is struggling to stay relevant, even to a cause that is extremely important (free software is more important than ever, the fsf shouldnt be struggling, but its been under attack for so long and pretending things are "great actually" is just pr, its not a good idea) they often do this-- freeze their core message and start drumming it incessantly, rather than continue to explore, educate and further the actual goals of the mission.
in other words: messaging, NOT action! thats the new fsf, and its so many organisations that nobody really believes in anymore-- because they dont actually DO anything. theyre dead weight with a budget of one sort or another, as long as they exist.
i compare this obsessesion with licensing (note, a free license is ESSENTIAL-- without a free license, it is not free software!) to the obsession with converting people to christianity. okay, yes-- i too hate comparing a movement with a religion, but its not the religious aspect of conversion that im stressing here. not in the least.
the problem with the obsession with converting people is that its shallow. in theory, you convert people so they can get to heaven AND BECOME BETTER PEOPLE so that heaven isnt full of miserable selfish dicks when you get there. i cant find the passage where jesus says "behold, all you have to do is convert to a religion and then you can be a complete douchebag all the time, it really makes no difference at all."
IF YOU WANT THE OUTCOME TO BE MEANINGFUL, there is more to (any) religion (or movement) than simply converting to it and then converting people. and (at least in one example) converting is the absolutely necessary first step. but it is meaningless by itself.
putting free software under a free license is not meaningless, as you get (approximately) 4 freedoms the moment you have the license. if its permissive, then yes, people can take that code and make non-free stuff, but if youre only using free software then youre not going to use any of that non-free stuff they make. if nobody uses non-free software, nobody will make non-free software for people to use.
of course IN PRACTICE, copyleft almost certainly helps more than just hypothetically. i alerted muckrights to some dramatic examples where copyleft would have helped (where permissive was sadly used instead).
but again, theres a difference between copyleft helping in practice, in some (or even most) situations, and permissive licensing "reflecting their deference to despots' divine right, best intentions, and diverse motivations and strategies." ...what the actual fuck? here, lets fix it so it isnt bullshit:
"SOMETIMES, OR OFTEN, EVEN reflecting a deference to despots' divine right, best intentions, and diverse motivations and strategies."
there, now its actually true. this isnt a quibble; oliva is definitely overstating it.
focusing too much on licenses and never getting to defending users against the other ways in which people fuck over the user (even in gpl-licensed code) is very much like converting to a religion and never growing as a person-- except by converting other people.
in this very cynical version of whats left of the free software movement, the gpl isnt "viral" as ballmer once said-- its a PYRAMID SCHEME that promises to defend freedom but only converts people to defending it, and never actually defends shit!
but im not saying NON-free software is any better; non-free software is the digital equivalent of a festering wound. im saying that free software USED TO BE better. it used to actually be against software tyranny-- now it just waves its hands around a lot and bullshits people. and i take offense to that sort of dishonest, pandering, superficial (cynical) bullshit.
i have no problem at all, with christians bettering themselves as people or with people actually fighting software tyranny. i DO have a problem with people turning that reasonable cause into an ideological pyramid scheme that does nothing but sign people up to sign people up, for something they will never actually get around to doing! (and this exactly what i think the fsf has turned into).
and its here i will add that the pyramid scheme theyre turning free software into right now, isnt only an ideological one. they want your money too, suckers! so get ready to line up and pay to have people try to get more of you to line up and pay! and thats not exactly a pyramid scheme to a fucking t, no sir!
and theres a well-established trajectory of non-profit organisations getting to this point, too. so its not like ive described a new sort of scam. "listener-supported" npr bows to some of the worst corporate sponsors on the planet, but people think they give a shit about what "listeners" want. the fsf wants your money, operators are standing by!
so fuck all of this bs-- no wait, theres still a bit more.
> Conflicts are to be expected, however, when the software hits situations that place abolitionists of software tyranny and proponents of enlightened despotism at opposite sides. Disputes may involve stances on issues ranging from proprietary blobs (firmware, web scripts) and DRM implementations to surveillance, advertising, SaaSS and network dis-services.
oh youre just getting started, there. but youve only got one paragraph to go, because you wasted so much time talking about nothing.
> OSSers won't generally support FSers in overthrowing software tyrants and abolishing their absolute power, nor would they join us in promoting those goals.
in other words, they will only help with code-- not other objectives. but he neglects to mention the various ways in which these people get underfoot, start coups over utter crap, slander us and the founder of the movement, and basically flood everything with corporate bullshit propaganda. but hey, thats just details, right?
> OSSers who feel aligned with these goals are advised to look into why they don't think of themselves as FSers
NO-- free software advocates are (strongly) advised to look into why they want so badly to team up again and again and again with a bunch of lying, backstabbing corporate shills. but thats not mentioned in olivas article.
=> https://wrongwithfreesw.neocities.org/a-forced-community-is-like-a-forced-marriage.html
of the three following choices, oliva takes the stupidest one:
1. wait for liars to stop themselves from lying
2. wait for free software advocates to learn why trusting backstabbing liars isnt a great idea
3. a little of both, because variety keeps things interesting
> we welcome them in our struggles for freedom.
thats not only very foolish, the fsfs arse is still sore from more than a year of proof. but they dont care what the rest of us have been through due to such a monumental fuckup. they just want converts (send money!)
> True OSSers will only share part of the walk with us, and that help is also welcome
i dont know if oliva is familiar with "the walrus and the carpenter", but the titular characters only shared part of the walk with the oysters-- on the walk back, the latter were carried.
if you want free software to be carried, on the walk back (to microsoft and other corporations) then the time has come, to talk of many things... and by all means, go for a walk with open source.
> in as much as it empowers users without empowering software tyrants.
what oliva doesnt understand (or admit) is that theres very little that is ultimately mutually beneficial in this arrangement.
initially, as in any scam, the arrangement appears beneficial. open source exploits us with rust and with mozilla, and it exploited khtml which was free software initially. whats happened to both is theyre both shit now, perhaps because we spend too much time trusting people we know dont give a shit about us or what we need. its like giving money to npr and expecting them not to kowtow to their corporate sponsors. they can always lie to their little supporters, but the big ones get to make demands.
thats how it really works-- in theory though, you actually matter!
free software follows up this misplaced trust in corporate bullshit and shills, with not caring about anything except the license. they claim to fight for our freedom! but if this were a defensive space station, they would first be welding the blast doors wide open, and then they would stop tracking incoming fire. theres only one thing that matters to their mission now:
"hi, we want to come take over your station."
"do you have a membership card and id?"
"yes, here you go."
"welcome aboard! enjoy your stay."
thats how the fsf treats corporate threats to free software now. as long as you use the right license, you can fuck up anything you want-- no questions asked! if anybody has a concern-- what do you want? theyre a member!
there is no mystery left as to why free software is in such an awful state. we have employed mostly traitors, and thrown out everything we would use to protect ourselves from them.
the license is working so very well, being treated like a sturdy industrial firewall with zero other precautions or protections. please open the email that says MICROSOFT-LOVES-LINUX and install the open source plugin. whats the worst that can happen? its FREE and OPEN SOURCE! and thats all that really matters to the fsf now-- who cares what its meant to do to the computer, or the user?
"we just want to make the browser spy on users and let entertainment companies delete files on their computer remotely."
"is it gpl-licensed?"
"yes, heres a copy."
"welcome aboard! enjoy your stay."
but thats freedom 0, right?
no! if freedom 0 still mattered, then the fsf would care when freedom 0 for everyone started drifting off into privilege 0 for corporations only. but they dont give a damn!
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org/the-bullet-points-that-killed-free-software.html
but you can change it, right?
sure! go and fork linux (the kernel) so it respects freedom. go and fork a bunch of other things that give ibm another de facto monopoly, and de facto control of (most of) the free software ecosystem. some people who are mouthpieces for the new fsf hate ibm so much; theyre only against people actually doing anything about it.
> Cooperation between OSSers and FSers is frequent in FS/OSS development projects
for which we have suffered incredibly, getting kicked out of developing our own fucking software and running our own organisations.
> and conflicts can be avoided by acknowledging the significant differences in ultimate goals
how? says who?
> and agreeing early on
with liars and schemers-- agreeing on? dont you think thats a bit, i dunno, one-sided? self-defeating? fucking idiotic?
> to take an unequivocal joint stand
with scam artists who will say anything to sucker you into letting corporations take over?
> for software freedom for users, and against its opposite: software tyranny.
"agreeing early on to take an unequivocal joint stand for software freedom"-- with a bunch of lying, backstabbing, traitorous douchebags.
i dont know what else to say about it, except that i stand by the alternative title for olivas mucksterpiece:
### sort-of-against-software-tyranny
the freedom to change the title is very important, but its nice when freedom leads to more choices, so heres another alternative:
### olivas-article-about-open-source-missing-the-point-misses-the-point-even-more
fuck it, i tried. olivas article missed the point of his own title, then it did an incredibly poor (even lossy) job of reinterpreting well-established points, then at the very last minute said "oh, right! some examples..."
but lets not pick on oliva too much, as hes just one person-- and this is pretty much the kind of pointless shit you should expect these days from the finally soldout foundation.
did you hear the one about the mass-murdering entree who swore he was innocent? he was only following hors doeuvres!
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org