Re: [Fsfe-uk] Gnu/Linux and freedom (was Linux in Thailand.)

[Chris Croughton]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:18:51AM +0000, Nick wrote:

> Freedom is the key. If you use non-free software, you are binding 
> yourself to secret proprietary interfaces. The user interface is a small 
> facet of this. Bigger facets are secret data formats. Secret file 
> formats, secret authentication protocols, encoding your personal 
> documents in a form only one organisation knows how to or has the right 
> to decode. Extending control from one platform (eg desktop to server or 
> to PDA) by making the desktop clients only talk the secret language when 
> communication is needed.

Not true in many cases.  If I use a proprietary POSIX-compliant library,
say, how doe that bind me to "secret proprietary interfaces"?  If I use
(say) PDE, a proprietary (closed source shareware) text editor for
Windows, how does that bind me to "secret data formats"?

All you are arguing for is open interfaces and protocols, the
implementations can be as proprietary as they like.  All you have to do
is verify them (or have someone you trust verify them) against the
public standards.

> If you want freedom from being controlled by a proprietary software 
> vendor, the only way is to avoid non-free software, even if it is 
> supplied at a zero financial price. Proprietary software is supplied in 
> binary form and not source code form.

By definition (well, by some definitions anyway, by others anything
which is made for gain is 'proprietary' which is why such terms are
often misunderstood when talking to people outside the community)/.

> Source code is the blueprint which 

some

>   humans can understand.

Sometimes.  See below.  I can write a 'free' application which I
guarantee I won't understand in 6 months time, let alone anyone else,
but it will be released under a 'free' licence.  I have.  I probably
will again, if I don't get round to documenting it at the time.

> Binary is not understandable by humans

Except when it is.  Never debugged a program in hex or octal?  I used to
do that all the time, disassemblers are for wimps.  Patched it in hex or
octal (or sometimes binary, punching holes in the paper tape) as well.

> but is 
> used by the computer of the day. The unique property of proprietary 
> software is that it is information which only computers understand and 
> only the vendor has

s/has/may have/

> the key to. This in turn converts your information 
> into a form which only the vendor has the key to.

It was mostly true up to that last sentence.  Replace `converts' by 'may
convert' and it is still true, but as an absolute it isn't.  There are
many proprietary applications which keep your information in a
human-readable form or in a form which complies with an open standard
(VB, for instance, which keeps the source in text form and binaries such
as images in a form which is a recognised standard for that data).

Sure, MSWord and some others don't have open formats.  But many
proprietary applications do have open formats, because they need to
interact or share data with other applications.

> When you share your information in proprietary form, you are obliging 
> the person you are sharing with to relinquish their freedoms.

True, to an extent (I can read MSWord files with OO.org, for instance).

> The proprietary software you have at the time lends you a key for as 
> long as you have that licensed copy. In the computer world, the life 
> cycle tends to be just a few years.

But again, all you are arguing for is open data standards.  The
proprietary or 'free' status of the /software/ has nothing to do with
that (except that if the source is available then the data format can
theoretically be derived from the source; having tried to do that in
some jobs involving porting and updating old software that is not always
easy, and in at least one case I found it easier to reverse-engineer the
format from the raw data than to understand the source!).

> With free software, everyone is given the key, and is given permission 
> to use the key. Anyone can look at the blueprint to understand the data 
> format of the information you have written to a file then write a 
> program to make use of it.

See my last paragraph.  Having the source doesn't always make it easier
to understand the data format.  I've seen code for creating and parsing
data files which was very difficult to understand, when I looked at the
data it was only lines of text in the form "variable = value".  Some of
the code to parse and generate XML I've seen and thought "what the
blazes is it doing?"

Again, open standards are the 'key'.  Having the source is nice, and can
often be useful, but the absense of source is no real problem if the
interfaces, protocols and formats are well documented and open.

Chris C