Return to Author Return to Main PageThis article is about my understanding of the Free Software Movement, it's ideology and how it generally changes the way I look at future purchases.
At its core, the free software movement (FSM) is an ideology with a world wide community who focuses on the creation of computer programs and other projects which are free from proprietary software also known as non-free software. It is important to note the semantic use of 'free software' does not necessarily attribute to giving the program away for no money, it is in fact stipulating the computer user should be able to have freedom to do what they wish with the program without any hindrance or interference by the developer of that software or device. Therefore the actual price or giving away for no money is actually irrelevant with respect to the free software movement.
The basis of free software can be viewed at the Free Software Foundation (FSF) website www.fsf.org or the definition as follows:
A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The main icon that centers around the (FSM) is Mr. Richard Stallman who first announced the 'Gnu's Not Unix' (GNU) Operating system (OS) development in 1983, which is often misrepresented by calling it Linux. There is a stark difference between (GNU) and Linux as they are two different beasts, (GNU) is an (OS) and Linux is a Kernel. To put it simply, A kernel is software that talks to all hardware, where as an (OS) is all other software which sits on top of the Kernel. However when (GNU) and Linux are combined they form the correct terminology GNU/Linux resulting in a functional computer. Other noteworthy contributions by Richard Stallman is that he also released GNUEMACS in 1984, and to date he is still actively promoting the free software movement via his many presentations.
The easiest analogy is to picture a door. When the door is closed e.g Proprietary / non-free software, the user is significantly restricted to just using the software or device and has absolutely no control over the software, nor does the user know what the software does at any stage during the operation of that software, in addition to not being able to inspect or freely distribute the code. This software code is only provided in an obfuscated format, a format known as binary which is extremely difficult to reverse engineer. Thus in free software analogy the door is open which allows a user to open the program, to inspect the source code, to make changes if so desired and to give a copy to anyone without restriction. The free software is offered in a source code which is easily read and understood and never provided alone in an obfuscated binary code. The open door analogy is not to be confused with “ Open Source ”, because thats another beast on its own.
Even though the (FSF) and Opensource have similar goals, each of the two handle the software licensing protection differently and both come from different ideological belief systems. Firstly, it is noteworthy to say that all work from the (FSF) community will use Copyleft licensing, however not all Opensource community will use Copyleft, instead they may also choose to use a non-Copyleft format otherwise known as a permissive licensing. So your most probably thinking what is a permissive license? A permissive license is different to Copyleft in a way which grants the open source software to be used within proprietary software if so desired, however the Copyleft licensing guards and protects all work from falling into the hand of proprietary software while still ensuring all work remains free for everyone to use, inspect, change or redistribute the software.
With regards to the two communities belief systems, the open source community uses a 10 point definition frame work, where the (FSF) uses a four point definition frame work. Thus both communities are essentially striving for the same goals as far as providing a framework for a person to be able to acquire software, free to inspect the source code, free to change the program as desired and free to redistribute the software. However where both camps have differing motivational approaches is the Open Source community stipulate the 10 point definition as a means that you need to follow in order to be classified as open source without any ethical connotation. Where as the (FSF) uses a four point definition and is coming from an ethical and moral stance which believes everyone has the right to do what they want with source code, thus the outcome will benefit society as a whole.
Therefore one can ultimately view the motives of the (FSF) and Copyleft licensing agreement as a more pure philanthropic methodology to preserve free software because it prevents any software being locked away or used by proprietary software.
O.k, So now that I have explained the above in a broader context, what motivated me to write this article in the first place was two nights ago I was having a discussion in an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) chat room and a person's premise of his argument was that I should sell my car because in order to use the cars OBDII port , I would have to use software that would only run on a proprietary (OS) Windows operating system.
Given the car works perfectly fine and it is in great condition it seems absurd to sell my car because of an ideology alone. An ideology alone is not a reason to sell the car because in this case I view the ideology as irrational because it negates many other facets pertaining to car ownership. For example, preference of car, an emotional bond to the car, possible financial loss if car is sold, reliability factor of the car, the fact public transport is unreliable and not to mention basically the majority of all cars with fuel injection systems will have a form of proprietary software within them. There are other reasons, although I'm sure you get my point. It is one thing to warn others of the dangers of proprietary software so people actively make their own decisions to prevent the many abuses which appear so often from business these days, however stating a person to sell their car because of propriety software alone is no different than throwing the baby out with the bath water! So the reality for me is that no I'm not going to sell my car because it clashes with an ideology even if I do agree with the context of that ideology, however the ideology would later change the way I would purchase the next car in the future. Sadly the reality is the car industry is a closed market and it is a monopolised sector, with future technology most likely to be guarded by manufactures attempting to prevent workshops or backyard mechanics like myself who tinker with their cars as they see fit. So the next car that I buy will not be new, instead likely to be a much older car partly because of the proprietary software even though all cars contain proprietary software inside, but mostly older cars are cheaper and easier to maintain than newer cars and to be honest the quality of cars is of much higher standard. I feel some car manufactures are either designing cars in ways that is either very complex and difficult for the average person to maintain themselves, or they are very stupid when designing the cars.
If I am able to reach to another issue relating to proprietary devices and software regarding my car, early this year my Audi's car battery had stopped working and I needed to buy a replacement. So I rang Audi up to see what type of battery I needed to buy for the car e.g dimensions, Cold Crank Amperage (CCA), Amperage etc. I was informed that I had to buy a specific Audi branded car battery because for my model car the computer would only accept a certain type of car battery. I was so shocked to hear this, I've driven cars for over 20 years and never had no knowledge of such a thing regarding a car required only a manufactures brand of battery. Historically all you ever needed to know was the battery dimension size, the connectors positions, the amperage and the (CCA) rating for a battery. Rip the old one out, jam that new one in which is only a 5 minute job and hey presto the car works again. If only that was the worst of the problem, I was then informed that Audi had to install the battery because they had to connect my car to the service department computer to re-code the battery to the cars computer. So with my past experiences anything to do with any dealership is always expensive, I asked how much this new battery would cost me. I was informed the total cost of a new battery and installation would be $750! I was devastated, my mind was racing how could this be such a beautiful car and yet this price for just a battery was so insane. While I wont reiterate what I said to the dealership staff member, lets just say I told Audi that I would think about it and call them back. Upon hanging up the phone I had decided to call the service department and ask for the item code for the battery, once this was given I again ended the call stating I would consider the price.
Unfortunately for Audi I am not a car owner that knows nothing, I do know a thing or two about cars and researching things has always been a strength of mine. Given the past couple of years I had been learning about car mechanics in my spare time, I decided to pull the old car battery to see if the code was the same as provided by the Audi service department. I was surprised to see the VW symbol on the battery next to the specific battery code. Now armed with two corresponding battery codes, I had called VW to see how much they wanted for a new battery for my Audi because it was the same battery code. VW proceeded to tell me “ they don't sell battery's for Audi cars, I would have to order from Audi ”, in which I had replied then why am I standing here in front of my Audi car battery that has a VW symbol on the battery! I pushed hard for the battery and it was eventually ordered on the basis that if it didn't work there was no refund for the battery. I thought are you kidding? Its like Microsoft windows pop up telling you “ Do you really want to delete this ”, of course I do otherwise I would not have pressed the delete key. Well the same goes for the battery which a total cost of $350 was a bargain price experiment considering how much Audi was attempting to fleece me for, besides it was the exact same part number code so whats the likelihood of something going wrong. When I got home I reconnected my new battery to the car just like every other car battery I have done in the past and the computer automatically recognised the battery code and the battery and charged it as per normal.
So all is well I guess, well it isn't really, because to keep in context with this article, the fact a car requires a specific brand of battery, a specific computer to code the battery into the car is just another form of proprietary system in place. Which if nothing else is designed to remove control from the car owner, thereby ensuring the manufactures grip over the customer and permit them to charge what ever fee they wish. I am just so glad I am not one of those people who know nothing about cars, otherwise I would have paid double the money for a 5 minute job which is just totally unacceptable. Do I love my car yes, will I sell it because it contains proprietary Software no, will I buy another Audi.... Never! If this example shows me anything it demonstrates the attempted of control over a customer and not to mention the financial exploitation of the customer for charging an absorbent price especially when it is only a 5 minute job. And just in case you think you will avoid Audi for what I said, the truth is this type of behavior is moving through all ranges of cars, so yes you can have that nice shiny new car but its comes with an unexplained hidden cost .. greater control over you one way or another, you may not seen it but it will be there.
So my car was the first issue that I had experienced with the whole concept of proprietary items. Another issue I experienced this week in particular is loading GNU/Linux onto another computer of mine. The old dual head graphics card which previously worked great on Windows, doesn't work as well with the GNU/Linux standard drivers. The issue is that both monitors are no longer independent, they mirror each other. While endeavoring to find new desktop GNU/Linux drivers for my graphics card, I had discovered the initial released versions of the card driver made by Radeon. The problem is that I am now faced with having already installed a free operating GNU/Linux operating system which has no proprietary software. If I was to install the Radeon graphics card drivers from the manufactures website, that would negate the purpose of installing a non proprietary GNU/Linux system in the first place because the Radeon graphic card drivers was proprietary software. Yes you heard correctly 'Proprietary software' those words to anyone in the (FSM) are akin to onions to ward off Count Dracula or sunlight to a vampire :). So what does this mean for my choice? Well the there are several choices:
I decided to go ahead with No:2, because The work spaces still give me much screen real estate as possible. Secondly I changed the setting to make the keys on my keyboard to shift each work space left or right to speed up the change of screens, instead of reaching for the mouse each time which is slower. I also increased the work spaces from 4 to 8 so I can have each favorite program I use open at maximum screen size. So therefore the change is not dramatic, and I don't lose money by buying something I don't need e.g another graphics card, nor will I throw any perfectly usable hardware away. If anything there is an upside to this change, by losing one monitor I will save money in additional electricity fees. This saving is a minimum 31200 Watts per year, based on a 6 hour 5 day week. This is significantly less than my real usage, although according to Ausgrid, I am saving $6.30 a week which amounts to $327.60 a year! Just for getting rid of one monitor, thank you GNU/Linux.
Audible Audio Books
Many many years ago, I had signed up for an Audible account prior to Amazon taking over the company in 2008 according to wikkipedia . Again this is way before the time I knew anything about Digital Rights Management (DRM). In recent times my hard drive started making some odd noises, it turns out the hard drive was in the early stages of failure. So I preemptively started backing up my data. By the time I got to the Audible program which I had totally forgot about as I hadn't used this program for years, I discovered that I didn't have a copy of the program to reinstall which plays the audio books I had bought. So I decided to go to the audible website to download the program again, this is when I had learnt that Audible had sold the company to Amazon. So I went to the Amazon website and discovered if I wanted to use the new program I would have to sign up to yet another account, which meant reentering my personal information. I felt these audio books were so old and because I had already paid for these audio books I shouldn't need to sign up with personal details. At this time the pain of (DRM) hit home. It was honestly the first time I had realised how insidious the (DRM) restrictions where and I could just here the words of Richard Stallman saying (DRM was evil and to be avoided) how right he was. I had felt that I was being controlled by a company and told to jump through hoops if I wanted to obtain this new copy of the program just so I could listen to something I had already bought (and thought I owned) many years ago. A feeling in two words? Total Dejection!
Putting the (FSM) ideology aside briefly, I can understand why a company may want to protect their products from being redistributed to others, however I find it outrageous, unethical and I totally disagree with binding a customer to only one program to use their data or a specific product which may prevent me making a backups of the digital media and play it on another computer that I own. Especially if I have legally purchased the device, software or media, I should have total ownership. Organisations who have chosen the path of using DRM in their products means not only protection of their work but absolute control over that customer with respect to how the customer may use the product they have purchased. (DRM) is just another way to strangulate the customer and shafting them with high prices in which customers either have to accept or forgo all other past purchases.
So can I still play this music with Amazon? My understand is yes. However I am required now to go to the Amazon store, sign up and account and enter personal information that I should not otherwise need to do as I had already purchased the item. But this is the massive illusion everyone is getting sucked into with regards to buy digital media, thinking you own the rights of the product you buy when you actually don't. So will I login into Amazon to download the new player? The answer is no, because I absolutely refuse to be cornered and be told to sit down, shut up and do what the company says. My decision is to not purchase any other audio media format from any company that does not permit the customer to play the media on multiple devices in an open manner. I am just lucky that I did not have many books (only about 10) which is still about $100 of a loss, however its actually a very cheap price to pay for the awareness to avoid future products that lock you in like a jail cell. There is another lesson in this example that many may not have previously considered. With all the digital media people are buying, what happens if that company sells out just like Audible did to amazon and the new company changes the restrictions and incorporates a monthly fee. Or decides to no longer support your medium because it's in the business bests financial interests to stop supporting old software, just to encourage you to purchase new software so you can use something you have already bought. Well unfortunately this is the danger of (DRM), it is the danger of all proprietary software and devices. Unfortunately my friend was not as lucky as he has spend a large amount of his hard earned money on digital media music which I will now discuss with his I Phone example.
iPhone
Last year my friend who knows very little about technology sadly fell into the trap of buying everything apple. I slowly watched him buy an iPhone and progressed to other apple products for compatibility reasons which also included music for iTunes. His iPhone battery life was absolutely ridiculous, not even lasting 6 hours on a full charge. One time my friend and I had went on a road trip where no power sockets were available because we were in the bush. He was using his mobile phone to take some photos of the scenery and posting on facebook. About ¾ into the day trip I had noticed my friend stop taking photos so I asked my friend what was wrong as I was concerned perhaps he was bored. He replied “ my iPhone battery is dead ”. I was shocked, I joked about how a false sense of security having that phone was, with my luck if I fell down off a rock ledge I could only imagine the terror he would face if his phone was out of battery and couldn't call the emergency department to help me.
That joke got me thinking, if the phone battery life was so crap why would he persist in keeping such an item? So I asked my friend why he still kept this iPhone, was it because he had no money to buy a new phone? He replied, “ no I've got the money, in fact I want to buy a different phone brand but I cant”. I didn't understand what my friend was referring too, so I asked for clarification. My friend replied, “I have all the music I had bought stuck in iTunes, I cant move it to another phone to play when I'm on the train”. His belief was the next mobile phone that he buys will have to be another iPhone. This story even though true shows how detrimental purchase awareness and how purchasing different brands of products attempt to lock you into maintaining only buying their own brand. (DRM) is a great marketing achievement and companies love it. However (DRM) does not do the customer any favors at all and we must always keep this in mind when purchasing products. (DRM) binds that client to products they may not wish to use in the future, and the penalty of moving away is the total loss of the items you have purchased. Hows that for a smack in the mouth! Thus the frightening motivation to stay put with a brand of software or device is self perpetuating because lets face it, no one wants to throw away things we still want and have spent good money on.
There are many things this article brings to our attention. Firstly the ideological values of the (FSF & FSM) have demonstrated that the use of proprietary software or (DRM) in software and device purchases are controlled by the manufacturers and you are a helpless passive user who is always at risk of being mistreated by proprietary design. Just like the passenger sitting in a car as its driver struggles to keep the car under control moving towards the telegraph pole, all you can do is sit and watch and pray the car doesn’t hit the pole. Secondly, items which contain proprietary software or (DRM) are never really 100% solely owned by the purchaser, to think otherwise would be a misnomer. Thirdly, products which contain proprietary software or (DRM) potentially hold the product purchaser to ransom and subjugation, especially if the company sells to another, decides to alter how the proprietary software or (DRM) content is accessed or decides to cease to support your product. Fourth, proprietary software or (DRM) has been used against customers to enforce a jail like pattern where customers are stuck with a product brand or face potentially losing their data. Fifth (DRM) or proprietary software can very easily be used to absolutely financially rape and pillage its customers as can be seen with my Audi example. Expect more of this type of price gouging when fully automated cars have evolved, I am sure car manufactures will attempt to lay claim no one but them should maintain the cars.
In terms of the (FSM), the (FSF) GNU licensing attempts to fully protect all software from the hands of propriety use. Additionally, we should endeavor not to purchase proprietary or other (DRM) type of products, as in doing so only perpetrates these companies behaviours. Every business focuses on income, its an essential requirement. Therefore if the mass population does not buy the products and informs the manufactures of the discontented rejection of proprietary software and/or devices and (DRM), the business sector are likely to change their behaviour.
It is interesting how proprietary software or (DRM) affects people and at what stage does a person feel dejected about being controlled. For example I had previously used Microsoft products which have same restrictions e.g don’t copy, don’t give copies to others, and your restricted to PC products. And then on the other hand with my experience with Audible’s (DRM) which is the same and forces you to only use one type of program made me feel so annoyed and resentful. Perhaps the reason is with Microsoft products I already expected this, perhaps with Microsoft I really didn’t have a choice so I just acted like everyone else and just click yes to the terms and moved along after forking out wads of cash for the software. However, for me now everything is very different. I refuse to be boxed in at the hands of an organisation, so this is the reason I deleted my Windows and installed GNU/Linux. When I buy anything now I don’t just look at the purchase itself, instead I have a more forward outlook and ask myself, how is this next product going to try and entrap me. Does buying this product further support a company treating its customers so very badly, what convenience if the manufacture purporting and what control am I really passing up for this convenience etc.
So getting back to my debate earlier in this article regarding the IRC chat and was told that I should sell my car because the program needed to talk to my cars on board computer will need to use proprietary software. The answer is no, I wont sell my car however when I purchase another car I will avoid making such errors which lock me in. Sadly with cars the only answer is to buy an older car that is less restrictive which is what I have done for my second car. The same goes with computer hardware, I will not just throw it away because it doesn’t work the same on a different (OS) platform. My approach is that over time all my current products will fail at some point, and once they do I will replace my items gradually (AKA grandfathered approach) to make a transition to non proprietary software or non-(DRM) oriented products, No controlling organisaitions, non controlling software, nothing that locks me into having no freedom of choice.
While not mentioned before in this article, the (FSM) ideology has led to me growing my own food to reduce my dependency from retail stores only stocking what they want for their customers. For me, I choose not to purchase foods from imported foreign countries when I know we can grow the foods here. The supermarket chain stores are acting in an identical fashion to the whole proprietary software and (DRM) debate, by increasing the cheaper imported foreign food sales and using their own product labels which rarely contain Australian product inside. The only difference with my food example, instead of using the terminology of proprietary software or (DRM), economics calls it globalisation. I know all too well by continuing to purchase foreign imported foods which maybe cheaper, will one day cause an Australian company or industry to collapse, which can be seen by milk and food industries as an example. This can only be a bad thing for consumers as true choice will eventually no longer exist. We have already seen this with the collapse of the Australian car manufacturing sector e.g Ford , Holden , Toyota. It is truly very sad to see many locally made products are slowly being weeded out in stores and replaced by foreign foods, in which in my opinion the Australian Governments of present and past should hang their head in shame for allowing this to happen. Just like the collapse of the Australian car industry due to globalisation, the same will occur with our farming and food production groups. Just knowing full well when the Australian food production sectors fails, food prices will inevitability increase significantly because the overseas market will have majority or total supply rights.
Always remember the power for a successful change to occur I shared by everyone and business behaviour will gravitate to where the money comes from. Therefore a successful movement for change requires a majority of actors not a minority. And finally the biggest lesson of all is if we all fail to unite against the forms of proprietary software and devices including (DRM), there will come a time in the not too distant future that it will be too late to reverse and we all will have to sit down, shut up and just have no other option to being shafted paying the obscene prices they will be able to charge for all products.
Until next time...
Darren Hamburger
Page Last update:23/05/2017
Return to Author Return to Main Page
Copyright © 2017 Darren Hamburger. All rights reserved.