[fsf-community-team] Introducton

[Mike Gerwitz]

Hello, everyone. I'd like to warn you ahead of time. I'm feeling a bit
talkative, so you may be in for a long read. ;)

I've been an FSF associate member since later 2007. While I haven't published
much material online (in the form of forum posts, blogs, etc) regarding free
software, it is an ethical choice and philosophy that I stand by very strongly
in both my personal life and, when possible, work.

I was introduced to free software through the GNU/Linux operating system over
five years back. Back then, I hadn't heard the term "free software". The
operating system was just a cool new idea from the standpoint of a young
hacker. However, it quickly grew on me. It started as an interest - I was
fascinated with how all the software on the operating system and within the
repositories was free of cost. Moreover, I noticed that for most of the
software (when visiting their websites), the source code was freely available.
This to me was quite a curiosity.

For the previous five years, since the age of ten, I was a Windows developer.
I started programming in Visual Basic, and that stuck for a while. So I was
very used to the proprietary nature of both the operating system and the
surrounding community. Since that was my introduction to software development,
I had adopted that policy. Indeed, I was looking for ways to lock down my
software so others couldn't alter it or circumvent any systems in place
designed to restrict the user's ability to use the software (such as an
expired trial). I noticed that, once .NET came around, decompilers were
readily available, and they did an excellent job. So I was looking for ways
around that. So this whole "open source" concept (again, I hadn't yet heard of
free software) was very different to me, and slightly puzzling/confusing.

As I continued using the GNU/Linux operating system, I found myself booting
into Windows less and less. All those years of hard work learning about the
Windows operating system, writing software for it, and hacking it (though I
used Windows, my interest was in altering it in ways the developers hadn't
intended) were given up in a matter of months. The operating system itself
seemed to have this feeling and atmosphere. It was very seductive. As a
software developer (and moreover hacker), I absolutely loved the ability to
modify my favorite software - often simply because I could, not because I
wanted to add or modify a feature. I quickly began to absorb the "open source"
philosophy, and applied it to my own software.

It wasn't until I began web development (not too far after) using PHP that I
began to encounter this curious thing called the GNU GPL atop nearly every
script that I was modifying. In the software I used on my desktop, I didn't
pay attention to the licenses. But this was right there in front of me -
directly with the source code. It was telling me flat out that I could do
whatever I wanted with it. I could modify it and give it to my friends. I not
only had the source code, but I had the RIGHT to it under terms of the
license, and failure to provide it would be a violation of that license.
Moreover, I could even sell those modifications, or base my own software off
of the code, so long as I released by software under a compatible license.

In retrospect, I was blown away.

After a while, I began wanting to write some commercial software in PHP. I was
dead set on it, and it seemed like the only way to make money off of it would
be to make it proprietary. I was going to obfuscate it, distribute the opcode
- do whatever I could. But I also loved the concept of free software. So I was
going to provide an "open source" version under my own license.

But something in me didn't feel right. So I decided on an open source license
that would give users permission to use the code (own the code) so long as
they purchased it. Yet this wasn't enough. I spoke with other communities, and
they told me that was unacceptable. They told me to release it under the GPL.
I couldn't quite understand at the time why. I though I was doing enough. And
that is when I was finally able to tell the difference between free software
and open source software.

As it stands today, any code I write is free. I made the difficult decision
that I'd rather write free code and potentially lose revenue from it rather
than write proprietary software. I feel so strongly about the ethics
associated with free software that, given the choice between getting rich from
an excellent piece of software, or releasing it to the community, I'd give it
to the community. Do note that I'm well aware that I am able to make money off
of free software. But I'm also well aware of the seductive power of strict
licensing that is nothing more than robbery. It might get you rich, but if it
were me, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

As it stands, the only place where I write proprietary code is in the
workplace. This is only because I needed to get my foot in the door. I have
not attended college - I was a freelance web developer out of highschool and
was able to find a good job from there. This isn't only because I dislike
college - it's because EVERY COLLEGE I LOOKED AT USED PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE TO
TEACH THE COURSES. Why would I go into a profession to focus on free software
when the tools I was learning from were non-free? I wouldn't.

But that's not to say I don't give my employer a hard time. I push the use of
free software wherever possible. I suggest replacements for our proprietary
systems - but I'm not too pushy. If you push too hard, they won't listen. But
if you give them gentle nudges in the appropriate situations (if you used free
software here, this wouldn't happen, or you'd have this benefit), while gently
throwing in the ethical implications, it has a much greater effect. I haven't
been there for quite a year, but I've managed to help another coworker
initiate a move to GNU/Linux for our web servers. We're using free software
alternatives for a couple projects I'm working on, and I'm pushing it in
others areas. The only areas I leave alone are those where we have no choice -
our vendors have us completely locked in. And when we're dealing with a system
that costs many millions of dollars, I can't exactly say "get rid of it".
That'll take time.


So where do I stand? I believe strongly in free software. I will use free
software whenever possible, but I am not a purist (though I try my hardest to
me in most situations). I may use proprietary software where there is no
reasonable alternative present. However, I don't do so happily. If I have any
say in the matter (or even if I don't), I will try to push the vendor toward
free software.

If I see others using proprietary software, I'll suggest to them alternatives.
I was able to have my entire household using GNU/Linux for a while, and when
friends and family have me come over to repair their computer, I hand them a
GNU/Linux distribution and tell them to try it out. I provide support for the
software to friends and family whenever needed. I bring the CDs, FSF articles,
etc into work and leave them around for others to see. After becoming an
associate member, I would take the stickers (the DRM ones are my favorite) and
place them on products in stores. When I ran out, I requested more and
suggested that FSF sell the stickers in the store so that others may do the
same (I see they've been added - has anyone else done similar with theirs?)

But I respect when others do not agree with the free software movement, or
wish to continue using proprietary software. I provide gentle pushes every
once and I while, but I don't want to nag and turn them off to free software.


My areas of interest, aside from the obvious as stated above, is campaigning
against DRM. I actively watch DefectiveByDesign.org, participate in some of
their campaigns, and actively convey information to others. On a political
side, freedom is a number one priority. Since I'm a software developer, I
extend this to software as well. There is very little that can spark a fire
inside me more than an attempt to take away a freedom.


Well, this is getting to be a bit too long. So let's sum this up. I do have my
own blog, but I rarely post to it. I follow all the FSF campaigns and
primarily Slashdot. I subscribe to the Linux Journal as well.


The Wiki has some links for suggested reading. I have read those over long
ago. It also asked that I respond to a couple statements. I'm only going to
respond to the first for the time being, as the other two I'm not very
knowledgeable on. I do have some experience on the topics, but I do not wish
to speak about something I do not know all the facts on, so as not to
misrepresent any information or speak incorrectly (that's not to say that I
don't have my opinions on the matter - I do).

Q: "Linux is awesome for checking email and browsing the web."
A: The GNU/Linux operating system does provide an excellent, secure
environment for checking e-mail and browsing the web. However, it also
provides many tools and other software to allow you to do much of what you can
do on Windows and Mac. For example, OpenOffice.org provides a free (both free
as in freedom and free as in beer) replacement to Microsoft Office, which can
even read and write office files. You are also able to listen to your music
and communicate with your friends via IM. Furthermore, GNU/Linux respects you
as an individual and your privacy. Windows and Mac place restrictions on what
you are able to do with your computer. Through various schemes such as DRM
(Digital Restrictions Management) and "Trusted Computing" (better called
"Treacherous Computing"), your computer tells you what you can and cannot do.
These systems are disguised under names such as Digital Rights Mangement and
"Windows Genuine Advantage" that sugar-coats what they are actually doing.
GNU/Linux will always respect your freedom and your privacy.

Furthermore, Microsoft and Apple attempt to lock you into their systems. How
many times have you had to purchase a new computer, or upgrade to newer
versions of Windows or Mac when you didn't need to or want to? You may
encounter similar situations with software such as Microsoft Office. Free
software - software that respects your freedom - can be freely modified by
others, as well as freely maintained and supported. If you don't want to
upgrade your GNU/Linux system - no problem. In fact, GNU/Linux can run just
fine on many older systems that Microsoft will refuse to support. GNU/Linux is
often free of cost to use, so there is no obligation to continue using it.
Give it a try and see what it feels like to be able to control your own
computer rather than having it control you.