Re: [libreplanet-discuss] opinions please: expanding the definition of "software freedom"

[Ali Abdul Ghani]

we hav the source we can control to pc

2015-03-22 12:32 جرينتش-08:00, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>:
> Folks,
>
> I've been watching the ongoing battles raging around systemd - and being
> bitten by it, as I consider upgrading a bunch of Debian based system,
> and dread the lurking dependencies that come with a radical
> re-architecting of critical system components.
>
> The weekend of Libreplanet seems to be as good an opportunity to raise
> this, as any.
>
> I've begun to wonder if there is a conflict between software freedom and
> key pieces of software that create massive dependency webs.  Or put
> another way, "vendor lock-in."
>
> The basic FSF definition of software freedom focuses on four basic
> freedoms:
>
>   * The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom
> 0).
>   * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
>     your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is
>     a precondition for this.
>   * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>     (freedom 2).
>   * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
>     (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance
>     to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a
>     precondition for this.
>
> I begin to wonder if programs that create massive dependencies - such as
> systemd - directly conflict with freedom 0.  The more that a specific
> piece of code becomes required, for other code to work - the less free
> we become to run other programs.   In general, there has been a trend
> toward cross-platform development, along with cleanly defined interfaces
> that allow for interchangeable parts (e.g., exim vs. postfix vs.
> sendmail).  To date, this carries down to the o/s level (Linux vs. Hurd
> vs. BSD vs. Illumos).   But systemd reverses that, creating a LOT of
> vendor lock-in.  (I expect there are other examples, but systemd is the
> one that's on stage at the moment - some would say the clear and present
> danger.)
>
> One might also argue that systemd, in particular, conflicts with freedom
> 1 - in terms of feature creep, poorly documented code, changing APIs,
> etc., etc.
>
> Which leads me to wonder if we, perhaps, need a 5th freedom:
>
>   * "Freedom from vendor lock-in," or words to that effect.
>
> One might also want to consider whether the spread of spyware and
> malware might inspire a 6th freedom:
>
>   * "Freedom from hidden software" or something like that.
>
> Or maybe, these are both part of "freedom to control the configuration
> of your computing system."
>
> Opinions?
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>
>


-- 
Think not of them, thou hast thy music too