> 1. It seems that, just because a might-be-free software recommends
> or suggests non-free software, it doesn't make the software non-free.
This is true. I think it is bad for free software to have non-free
dependencies, but that being the case does not negate the software
license and make it magically non-free.
> 3. Due to the informations in 1 and 2, it seems that using the
> licensing differences as main argument isn't strong enough.
Open-source and free software are almost identical in terms of
licensing. It is how they are advocated that is the key difference- the
free software movement uses an ethical, philosophical narrative to
promote free software primarily to users, while open-source promotes
free software as a more efficient development model for making 'better'
software, primarily to businesses.
> 4. Due to the information in 1, 2 and 3, the strongest difference
> between the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition
> seems to be that: The Open Source Definition doesn't have a provision
> against tivoization, restricted boot or digital restrictions/rights
> management (DRM).
>
> 5. Considering 1, 2, 3, and 4. In practice, this means that, even if
> the complete corresponding source is available and correctly licensed
> to the effect that all the functional data (in which software is
> included) is "free", and all non-functional data can, at least, be
> redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed non-commercially" =
> "shared"), the resulting work can contain, under the Open Source
> Definition at least, mechanisms which deny the users' freedom towards
> the functional data like, as stated earlier: tivoization, restricted
> boot or digital restrictions/rights management (DRM), and other
> mechanisms which prevent the user to exercise the freedom to use
> adaptations of the functional data (freedom 0).
Free software can implement DRM. There is nothing in the GFSD which
prohibits it.
DRM is a secondary evil, the implementation of which is facilitated by
the licensing of non-free software. You could have DRM in free
software- but no one would use it since the community would quickly get
rid of it. Free software is adequate protection against secondary,
tangible injustices such as DRM and other malware functionalities.
> 6. Supporters of the Open Source Definition generally appeal to
> consumer values to get trust from society, like prioritizing security
> or ease of use. Similar to the Dale Carnegie compromise, according to
> "Avoiding Ruinous Compromises" which is available at the GNU
> project's website[4].
Yes. That was the general tactic of the early OSM in the late 90s- to
get free software widespread in business by dropping the ethical
narrative.
> 1. Do you think that non-free software should be installed by us to
> a computer user, if for example, we can't manage to buy hardware
> (either charging the user, or by charity or crowd-funding between us)
> to replace the hardware which requires non-free software to work?
Possibly. This could either be a beneficial or ruinous compromise,
depending on the circumstance.
If the installation of non-free software is merely a holding action to
the arrival of freedom-friendly hardware, then yes, I would do so to
make life easier for the user in the meantime. Provided it is in the
long-term interests of freedom, I think this is permissible, this being
a beneficial compromise where non-free software becomes the means to
the end of freedom- much like how GNU installs non-free software
occasionally in order to reverse-engineer or produce a replacement for
it.
On the other hand, if some laptop is released which only works with
Windows, then that's just a terrible product, and should be rejected
outright rather than any compromise sought.
> 2. Do you think that we can recommend or teach the user how to use
> the non-free software, specifically speaking (such as a command which
> is only available to that non-free software)?
That's a difficult one. That would depend on whether the action
entailed would be a ruinous or beneficial compromise.
For example- I would not help someone with Microsoft Word- I would tell
them to install LibreOffice and then offer them assistance with that.
Just blatantly helping people with non-free software is bad, because it
normalises and promotes the former use of the same.
On the other hand, if a user is awaiting the delivery of a ThinkPenguin
wifi adapter, and is using non-free wifi firmware for the in-built card
in the meantime, then I would gladly show her how to connect to wifi
using the GNOME network manager (or whatever), in order to improve her
proficiency with the remainder of the free operating system, and so
smooth her transition into free software. In fact, in that case I would
actively endorse the use of non-free firmware- if it is only a holding
action until freedom-friendly hardware arrives, and so serves the
long-term goal of freedom.
That would be a beneficial compromise.
By the way, the example you gave here for the situation you describe
isn't really relevant. Teaching someone how to create a GNOME shortcut
isn't teaching them how to use non-free software, it's teaching them to
use a free desktop environment- which can be used with any software,
free or otherwise. What the user decides to use their shortcut-creating
faculties is up to them.
Helping them to use Lightworks directly would be bad for obvious
reasons.
> 3. Do you think that free software activists and supporters/followers
> can use non-free software?
Yes. If there is a greater evil to which non-free software is lesser,
then of course non-free software use is permissible. If someone is
undergoing a medical emergency of some sort, and you use their iPhone
to call the emergency services, then it is acceptable as a lesser evil
to save said person from harm.
Another case in which I personally think non-free software can be used
is in the case of non-free firmware if it is absolutely necessary. This
is one important area of compromise- I would never have even
encountered the issue of freedom without non-free firmware, so there is
one.
Anecdote: tired of Windows 8, I decided to try the mythical "Linux" of
which I had heard tell. I settled on Debian, but my laptop required
non-free firmware for wifi. Not caring about freedom at the time, I
installed non-free firmware- which was what allowed me to use my
laptop, which is what sent me down the road towards being a committed
GNU/Linux user, which is what had me encounter the FSF and free
software in the first place, for which I am now a fanatical evangelist.
If it weren't for that compromise, I would still be using Windows.
I think the protection of our fragile ecology is a more important
issue- one directly impacting the survival of our species- than free
software, and I would rather use some non-free software than waste
hardware.
> 3. Do you think that we can recommend or install non-functional data
> that can't be redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed
> non-commercially" = "shared")?
Capitalism is a system which is antithetical to sharing and mutual aid.
As long as it exists, the tendency will always be for capital to attack
solidarity and sharing. I think it is futile to campaign for free data
at the moment. We should focus our efforts on overthrowing capitalism-
and free data is not a crucial reform that should be fought for in the
context of the present system. On the other hand, it is essential that
popular control of software and computing as a whole exist, since
without it, there can be no effective digital resistance.
> 4. Do you think that we can play/watch/view non-functional data that
> can't be redistributed non-commercially ("redistributed
> non-commercially" = "shared")?
I think we *can* do it, in the sense that we as humans are capable of
doing it. Whether we *should* do it, on the other hand, is another
matter entirely. I do use non-free non-functional data of all kinds-
books, films, game files, artwork, etc. throughout all my diverse
spheres of activity.
One reason is simply one of practicality- there is
very little non-functional data which actually is free, when it comes
to things like films. Most are licensed under the Copyright Act to
prevent "piracy" (unauthorised copying/distribution). If I decided to
reject all non-free media in the same way I reject all non-free
software, then my house would undergo a purge of magnificent
proportions and there isn't really much I would be capable of.
The movement for free non-functional data is the free *culture*
movement, not the free *software* movement, and the two should not be
confused. While I am a firm supporter of the latter, I am more
ambivalent about the former- although free software is incredibly
important in the here and now (and in any hypothetical society) and
should be advocated because non-free software is a social evil, free
culture is directly incompatible (to a great extent) with capitalism,
and it is mostly futile to try and push for free media when we live in
a profit system.
Off-topic- one example of me using non-free, non-redistributable data
is my use of the Morrowind world data files, packaged with the
proprietary game Morrowind. Although I reject the non-free software
component to the game (the game engine), and use OpenMW instead, I
don't particularly care about the game data- I consider it in the same
ethical position as The Magnificent Seven, a film (which I watched last
night) which is not free. Since I already have a copy of Morrowind in
my possession (purchased before I learnt of free software) and so using
the data files does not incentivise further non-free software
production, I still play the 'game' (access the world, that is) but
with a free 'client'- OpenMW.
Basically, I think free software is a seriously pressing issue, and
directly impinges both on user freedom and society's computational
sovereignty, while free culture is not as important at the moment. I
prioritise the former over the latter.
tl;dr Yes, why not. Free software is more important- after all it is a
tool which should be controlled by the user, while non-functional data
is just a purchased experience, much like a rollercoaster ticket or
something.
If anyone wishes to respond, please send me your response directly to
mox...@riseup.net since the Trisquel mailing list still isn't working
for some reason, and I probably won't be bothered to check the board
via the web.
