In a reply  to Tim O'Reilly , Bradley Kuhn and Richard
Stallman illustrate once again why the FSF's use of the word
`freedom' is...well, I'll say "confusing", though stronger terms
They begin by writing "Power is being able to make decisions
that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom,
we will fail to uphold real freedom." Thus far I agree with
Tim asserts that the most fundamental software freedom is the
freedom to choose any license you want for the software you write.
Kuhn and Stallman reply "Unstated, but clearly implied, is that one
person or corporation chooses the rules to impose on everyone
There is a curious logical reversal here. In the world of Tim's
Freedom Zero, nobody gets to choose the rules under which
developers will release software -- they make their own choices.
Yet Kuhn and Stallman say they don't like this world. It appears
that they would prefer a world in which people who write software
cannot choose the proprietary licenses that Kuhn and Stallman
In other words, Stallman and Kuhn want to be able to make
decisions that affect other developers more than themselves. By the
definition they themselves have proposed, they want
Perplexing, isn't it? Tim and the FSFers both claim to stand for
`freedom'. Both assert that each others' definition of "freedom" is
actually a covert form of control, a claim of power over others.
The only difference is in who the victims of "Powerplay Zero" are,
users or developers.
Some words (like "freedom") make this kind of semantic ping-pong
game way too easy. They obfuscate more than they enlighten, they
cloud the issues rather than clearing the air. This is a major
reason I have spent the last three years trying to get open-source
developers to stop talking about "freedom". The way we use
the word doesn't merely confuse others, it confuses
Witness Tim on one side, and Kuhn & Stallman on the other,
bashing each other with perfect rhetorical symmetry. Is there any
way we can break the deadlock here? Any way to analyze Tim's
premise vs. the FSF's premise without getting caught up in the
unhelpful emotive fog surrounding words like "freedom" and
I think there is. I'm going to invent a nonsense word now:
"flerbage". And I'm going to define it. I have the condition of
flerbage when I can behave in the confidence that nobody will take
my life, my physical property, or my time without my consent.
(Observe that I am not prejudicing the discussion by assuming that
the software I write is my property.)
I am pro-flerbage. There. I've made my moral
commitment. I like it when people aren't killed to serve the ends
of others, or robbed of their goods to serve the ends of others, or
made to surrender their time (the irreplaceable time of their
lives) to the ends of others. It's good when these things don't
happen. It's evil when they do.
How do the respective prmises of Tim and the FSF meet the
First, say I'm a user. Gill Bates of Sicromoft releases yet
another bloated, buggy operating system under a proprietary
license. Kuhn and Stallman would have it that he is "imposing rules
on everybody else". But is my flerbage affected? Not obviously. I
don't have to use Bates's bloatware. I've got Nulix, a wonderful
operating system developed by people who like to write code that
has a friendly aardvark for a mascot. The odds that anyone is going
to come to my home and kill, me, or rob me, or force me to labor
for their ends rather than my owm, are not increased by Sicromoft's
There are certainly things Sicromoft could conceivably do that
would decrease my flerbage. For example, they could get a law
passed that would make it illegal to issue software under
open-source licenses. Then I might face a choice between spending
my time coping with Sicromoft's bugs for Sicromoft's benefit or
having police come to my house to drag me off to jail, or kill me
if I resist arrest.
But someone's mere act of issuing software under a proprietary
license doesn't change my flerbage. Tim's premise seems benign
enough to me as a user.
Now let's suppose I'm a software developer. I write open-source
software to have fun and make money. I write proprietary software
to have fun and make money. Part of my flerbage is that I can offer
people a license that says "I trade you my software on the
condition that you (a) pay me some money, and (b) don't give a copy
to anyone else." If they accept, fine. If they don't, also fine; I
wander off to find another customer, and they wander off to find
another developer. Again, Tim's premise seems pretty benign.
Stichard Rallman releases a piece of software under an
open-source license that is superior to one of my proprietary
products. Has he decreased my flerbage? No. The time I spent coding
my product has decreased in tradeable value, but he hasn't forced
me to labor for anyone else's benefit. Nor has he measurably
increased the odds that I will be killed or robbed. Tim's premise
is good for both of us.
But now let's suppose that, after years of lobbying, messrs Kuhn
and Stallman get a law passed that makes proprietary licenses
illegal. We are now in the world of the FSF's premise.
As a user, my flerbage doesn't change. I never wanted to issue
software under a proprietary license to begin with, so the new
license doesn't touch me.
But as a developer, things are very different now. If I walk up
to someone and offer them the same proprietary license that I did
before the law was passed, police may come to my house to drag me
off to jail, or kill me if I resist arrest. My flerbage has
The situation is not symmetrical after all. We have broken the
deadlock, and suddenly the FSF's premise doesn't seem so benign any
more. See how much clearer things are when you avoid using slippery
ping-pong-ball words and focus on actual behavior, and especially
on the question of who gets to use force and when they get to use
I'm not going to make any claims about "freedom" here. I'm just
talking about flerbage. But if you the reader agree with me that
more flerbage is a good thing and less flerbage is a bad thing,
then there are some questions we may want to ask Bradley Kuhn and
Here's the first and most important one: if you two
could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would
you do it?
If their answer is "no", then the dispute with Tim is over.
Because that will mean they do recognize a right for
developers to choose licenses as they will without being killed,
jailed, or threatened for choosing the "wrong" one.
If their answer is "yes", then there are many, many other moral
questions we could ask them -- and should, if only so that we can
get some idea if they're too dangerous to have as neighbors.
Eric S. Raymond
.. a government and its agents are under no general duty to
provide public services, such as police protection, to any
particular individual citizen...
-- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.