Richard Stallman wants users to have software freedom for all published computer software.

Richard Matthew Stallman, founder of the free software movement recently gave a talk entitled “Copyright vs. Community” at Balamand University, in north Lebanon. He has given this talk many times before and there are recordings of previous talks available online (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I wasn’t at the Balamand University talk, but I’ve heard this talk a number of times and I’m familiar with the questions that are sure to follow. Below I try to answer points of confusion that come up.

According to one poster

He basically said that copying music doesn’t hurt the artist because the artist has already been screwed over by the record industry. Now, I’m definitely not one to argue against the last part of that statement, but Mom always taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Unfortunately there is no accompanying explanation for how copying music is “wrong”. We need to distinguish between what’s illegal (copyright infringement) and unethical. Friends share with each other because sharing is a natural thing to do, sharing builds community, and because people typically value their friendships more highly.

The poster continues

But later, Stallman said something that I found very surprising. He said that he has no problem with the firmware being burned into the hardware (via a ROM chip or the like). He said that he wanted a “black box”, and it’s obvious that he has no problem with proprietary firmware as long as it’s permanently embedded in the hardware rather than being loaded into it at boot time.

What I didn’t understand is why Stallman feels that there’s a difference? What is it? The method used to get the firmware into the hardware? Why make this the line in the sand? It seems very arbitrary to me.

The difference is the user’s freedom to alter the code distributed to them.

Stallman’s distinction (as I’m sure he covered about in his talk) has to do with a user’s freedom to run, learn, adapt, and share functional works (including published software). This is an ethical issue the free software movement does not shy away from. The free software movement works to build and maintain a community of equal opportunity and social solidarity; all computer users should be free to make their copy of published computer software do what they want it to do. The heart of the free software movement concerns itself with the most important question anyone can ask: how shall I treat other people?

When code is in a ROM (read-only memory) chip or in circuitry (there’s no difference when it comes to user’s freedom), the user and developer have no opportunity to change that code without changing the hardware. In this way the developer and the user are equals.

The opportunity for change exists wherever there is storage that allows alteration. When a device’s program is software, the issues of software freedom are raised. The question becomes who has permission to make changes to that software? This is a question of permission not technical know-how, time, interest, or budget to change the software. If the software is free, the user can get a copy of the program’s source code and make their device behave as they wish. They can even help other users by sharing their improved code. If the developer is the only person who may modify the software, the developer subjugates the user. Developers who want to maintain this power over the user will not distribute free software for the device or complete documentation on how the device works.

Contrary to what the poster’s initial comment says, pursuing software freedom (and the distinction Stallman made regarding hardware and software) is not about “the ability to distribute a piece of software without having to have a vendor’s (or anyone’s) permission”. What the free software community wants (and has worked for for over two decades) is permission to run, share, and modify published computer software. Where the user’s software freedom is not respected, programmers in the free software community write/obtain replacement programs and then distribute those programs as free software.

Firmware is software that runs on a computer other than the main computer someone uses. For instance, there is firmware in a router used to connect to the Internet. In fact, a number of popular home Internet routers sold in the US run on free firmware (much of that freedom was guaranteed thanks to the strong copyleft in the GNU GPL, a copyright license written by Stallman).

Finally, I don’t know much about Lebanon’s copyright and patent law but if there is no copyright or patent law (as the poster indicates), I would not be surprised to learn that Stallman was invited to give a talk there because his talks are highly informative and ahead of their time; he’ll talk about what you’ll need to know to fend off bad copyright policy and bad patent policy. Informed people can work together to educate others and effectively organize against the multinational business interests that are so often behind horrible copyright and patent policy.

3 thoughts on “Richard Stallman wants users to have software freedom for all published computer software.

  1. As the poster quoted above, I would love to clarify a few points.

    1) The main reason I think “sharing” music is wrong, at least in the context of current record companies, is the fact that most of the *bands* I listen to say they don’t want their listeners to do it.

    If I release code under the GPL, I don’t want somebody to ignore its terms because they think it’s “unethical”, so why would I do that to the groups I listen to.

    If the bands wanted to release their music under a Free license, then, obviously, it is no longer unethical to share it. But, until copyright law changes, it is not *our* right to determine how *someone else’s* work should be shared, and that’s what Richard Stallman seemed to be implying at the talk (though, that’s probably not what he meant to be implying).

    2) When it comes to proprietary firmware, I am 100% behind Stallman’s desire that *all* firmware be Free. My complaint was that I did not see why a firmware distributed to a user in a ROM and firmware distributed to a user in a package should be treated differently. You have listed at one good reason above, and one of the commentators on my blog has listed another good reason.

    To be honest, though, both reasons come across to me as rationalizations to cover the fact that insisting on Free firmware for every piece of hardware in the computer is just not realistic today. I feel that if Stallman is going to be consistent, he should argue that all firmware, whether burned into a ROM or released in a distribution, should be Free.

    I do want to clarify that while copyright is on the books here (I think), it is rarely, if ever, enforced. What I found ironic is that Stallman’s views on copyright were probably considered too strict by some of those in the audience. After all, they can go to the local DVD store and buy a new Hollywood release for $3.00. Same price for a Windows 7 Ultimate Edition DVD (unlocked with who knows how many viruses that also come on the DVD).

    Finally, I do want to reiterate that I’m glad Stallman came to Lebanon, and I did enjoy listening to him. The main point of my blog is that Stallman seems look at everything in terms of black and white when there are occasionally shades of gray.

    • The main reason I think “sharing” music is wrong, at least in the context of current record companies, is the fact that most of the *bands* I listen to say they don’t want their listeners to do it.

      If I release code under the GPL, I don’t want somebody to ignore its terms because they think it’s “unethical”, so why would I do that to the groups I listen to.

      Because not all license terms are the same and most record company licenses are far more restrictive than what people need to behave as friends. Sharing is an essential part of community and society; one of the ways people treat each other is by sharing what they have and that includes making copies of information. I don’t see how any of this changes “in the context of current record companies”.

      As for the GPL: Those who commit copyright infringement with GPL’d works object to the GPL because they want to deny freedoms to their users, freedoms which they received from the GPL. This is not the same issue as some band licensing copies of their recordings to prevent even non-commercial verbatim sharing.

      Licenses don’t dictate ethics, that’s a backwards way of looking at things. The FSF puts it well, “The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.”

      To be honest, though, both reasons come across to me as rationalizations to cover the fact that insisting on Free firmware for every piece of hardware in the computer is just not realistic today.

      People said the same thing about free software over 20 years ago: nobody would work on software without being paid for their work and you’ll never have a free operating system. Apparently they were wrong. Today there are many free operating systems and we face different challenges usually issues with people not respecting others’ software freedoms (DRM, copyright infringement of free software, and the existence of proprietary software to name a few). These problems tell us the same thing: we should keep on fighting for the future we want—a future where all published computer software is free as in freedom, and computer users defend their software freedom even if they can’t directly exercise those freedoms themselves because they understand the benefit to themselves and society as a whole.

  2. Excellent post, but I think there is an even simpler, more practical explanation to the so called “line in the send”.

    If I may:
    When the firmware is written during manufacturing in a way that can not be altered (i.e. to actual ROM, not FLASH variants) it becomes an integral part of the device.

    The user does not have to worry about copyright and distribution issues because where ever the device goes the firmware goes with it.
    But, if the firmware needs to be loaded during boot and is distributed as a separate driver the copyright issue suddenly becomes problematic:

    The user is limited as to where he can store the driver. If he accidentally puts it in a shared folder where others can copy it he could be accused of copyright infringement.

    In extreme cases, users may even be prevented from making backups for emergencies.

    And what happens if a user wants to sell a piece of hardware to someone else?
    Its fine to resell hardware you own, but the license for the accompanying driver may prevent transfer of rights like many application licenses do.

    If you strictly follow the letter of the law the following stupidity is encountered quite often:
    You and your friend have the same graphics / sound / whatever card.
    Your friend lost the driver CD that came with the card but now needs to reinstall the driver.
    You want to give him your copy, but legally you are not permitted.

    A second version of the problem was demonstrated recently by Sony when they decided to remove a feature from the PS3 through a firmware update.
    If the firmware can be changed, and the manufacturer is the only one who can do it, then users may unexpectedly wind up with hardware that does less the it did when they bought it or simply works differently.

    The absurd thing is, hardware companies do not sell drivers, they are actually an extra manufacturing expanse, a side effect.

Comments are closed.