I develop non-free software for a living. My lively-hood, my standard of living, my hobbies (all very nice, and very expensive), all depend on it. 100%.

And yet RMS was and continues to be a sort of software demi-god to me. I'm an atheist, but I'm expressing it with religious terms, so I don't use those terms lightly. RMS really is what I look up to and strive to achieve. No, I don't want to be him, but yes I do wish to match his philosophical purity.

So when I say I think that people who knock on RMS because of their profession are in error, I'm also not speaking lightly.

I develop closed source software. Because it is a niche marketplace and releasing our software as open source would probably not work out very well in the end.

However we couldn't develop our software without GNU software tools. Personally I support Stallman. He probably thinks what we are doing is morally wrong, so be it, I still support him because I think his ideas and philosophy changed computing world for the better. It doesn't have to be black and white and can be in between.

We have GNU/Linux -- probably the best, server OS in the world. And it is FREE. Think about that. If anyone remembers what big Unix vendors would charge for it, you'd see how huge it is.

Yeah Stallman is an extremist but I think every movement needs its extremists to push forwards. The ideals of the extremists are probably never realized fully but because they are there, the whole movement (including the moderate positions) moves forward.

I heard him talk last week in Zurich, and got a chance to ask him about those of us that work on what he termed as "custom software" for our clients, and whether this non-free software is bad. He was of the opinion that it does not involve the oppression of users, so is not ethically questionable.

I think topic is still open for debate.

but, however much it contributes to your living, do you genuinely believe that end-user restrictions are a good thing?

Of course most anyone would be against them, but personally I think it's a consequence of how laws work and how word of mouth works. Remember the lady who bought coffee at McDonald's and managed to burn herself? She did that, but McDonald's was held responsible.

The other example is Windows. For years and years it was known as a horribly unstable OS despite the fact that most of the failures were caused by poorly written 3rd party software. By locking things down more, Apple makes it harder for 3rd parties to make them look bad.

citing the mcdonald's lady is a bad idea - it just shows that you don't know what that case was all about. see http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

fair point about apple benefiting from their restricted ecosystem, though note again that it's directly at the expense of their users' freedoms.

I think that attitude grew out of the extreme frustration with not being able to fix basic printer bugs in the printer drivers inspite of having the expertise to do it and waiting on the manufacturer who may or may not care enough to release fixes/enhancements. We take for granted the ability to being able to fix(or get fixed by 3rd parties) various physical things around us(you paid for the car, so it's yours to fix or break), so why not software?

How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car? Apple went one step ahead and did the equivalent of requiring to approve all accessories and anything to enhance your car.

I may not agree with his conclusions, but I can understand his reasoning and that there is a method behind his (alleged) madness.

I would be quite upset if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of my car without warning me.

I might be considerably less upset if there were both "cars with locks on their hoods" and "regular cars without locks on their hoods" and if I was offered the choice between them.

It's quite possible to support the choice between FOSS and commercial software, and think that FOSS is a great thing for people to develop, without deciding that people whole build closed-source software are "immoral". Don't like it? Don't buy it.

I know this is a bit disingenuous and there are corner cases where it's hard to avoid closed-source. There are even a few cases where no amount of consumer choice (even, say, someone who avoids smartphones and 'cool gadgets') will allow you to escape closed source (e.g. government services available as closed-source software only or working only on platforms where you have to use closed source). The point still stands, broadly.

You're talking about choice, but software platforms are natural monopolies and the winner takes all. Sometimes there is room for a second place in case you carve out a niche, but there is no room for a third place.

So enjoy your freedom of choice, for now, but I remember a time when Microsoft was so strong that alternatives to Windows seemed destined to die.

And alternatives would have died, if Microsoft had their way with Trusted Computing ... and personally I could see Microsoft banning Firefox because "it duplicates existing functionality". But hey, Apple is cool, right?

What if it were a criminal offence to break the lock on your car's hood so you could fix the engine yourself? That's the world the Free Software movement struggles against.

>How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?

Why would I care? I don't know anything about what's under the hood and I don't want to. You know what would be great about them locking the hood? If they do that they can't expect me to do maintenance things like pouring in oil, windshield wiper fluid or any of that stuff.

The more "freedom" you have on a computer the more maintenance you have to do. Linux is the most "free" OS and it also takes the most effort to administrate. Every second I spend administering a computer is a second I'm spending on something I don't care about and doesn't get me any closer to what my business is about.

However you fail to see that if you can open the hood of the car so can a mechanic. You are free to go and sign a contract that is just between you and him, that says that you will not open the hood of the car, but they will on any sign of trouble. As soon as something is wrong, you call them and they will come and do maintenance for you.

Congratulations, you just bought and installed Redhat Linux. Have problems configuring your software, call them up and they will be happy to help you. They are great, actually

But then someone wants to fix their car but they don't have the money to pay a mechanic. Instead they have all the time they need, so they can read through manuals and try to fix things themselves.

Congratulations, you just downloaded, installed and configured CentOS. Have fun playing with it, tearing its guts out, recompiling its kernel and doing whatever you want with it.

Now you are focused on features. "Oh look, super user friendly interface! Never have to open the hood of my car". That is great! What about anti-features. Now that you can't open the hood of your car. One or two car manufacturers can start installing tracking systems that report your position, record all your conversations, all your phone calls, etc. Why? Well because maybe they were approached by the FBI or because they decided they could sell all this as marketing info to third parties.

Now only that, there was legislation proposed to make it actually illegal to open the hood of your car. Think about that. You bought it, you open the hood, and police come to your door to arrest your for it.

let's not forget that it would kill the entire car service industry in favor of the dealerships. Thinking of the financial impact on society as a result is already scary but it also doesn't let me choose between getting a cheaper oil change at quickylube or paying twice the price at my dealer. (You get to decide how valuable the dealer guarantee is).

"How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?"

I don't think this analogy fits because there are open devices and people don't buy them. You don't buy them.

This is more along the lines of, what if all cars had locks on their hoods, but there was an 'open' car with no locks, but it was only a Pinto.

Then people point to the Pinto and say, "See no one is buying it! No one cares about openness!" The real conclusion is the there are relatively few people that are willing to go extremely out of their way to remain on the side of open-ness. If there were two products that could compete at the same level, people may skew towards the open one.

People also assume, in the car case, that the law will be rational about allowing them to circumvent restrictions. Locks on the hood? You bought the car, so cut 'em. It can void the warranty, but it can't be made illegal.

In fact, the law usually goes in the other direction: it's illegal for manufacturers to actively put in some kinds of restrictions, like first-party-only replacement parts or only-serviceable-by-manufacturer vehicles. Putting a lock on the hood, if it's intended to prevent third-party servicing, is probably illegal in the first place.

So why not do that to software too?

I don't think that can happen, though. The investment required to make something like the iPhone needs to be recouped somehow. If it were free, people would be able to clone it, reducing the ability for the original developer to create v2.

I would drop my Apple household if I could have a free environment that worked as seamlessly as my Apple environment, not just for me but for my wife and kids as well.

I am making a tradeoff between free (though I don't believe a free phone exists, no matter how open Google claims they are) and easy. I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Calling me immoral (RMS, not you :) is insulting.

That said, I am grateful for everything RMS has accomplished ideologically. I use emacs daily, but more important, things like GNU/Linux exist thanks to his work. I just want nothing to do with him.

This is what frustrates me so much with all the rabid "ZOMG, they want to take over the world!!!" fear mongering against Apple. Is is so hard to believe that Apple has just found that most users want their machine to just work as easy as possible? Is it so hard to believe they are just doing what their customers want?

It is.

Their system could be just as usable if they gave you the root password. They could have provided the App Store by default, as a seal of approval, and let the users get their software from elsewhere as well. The garden is still walled, but you have a door for when you want out.

Now without this App Store exclusivity, they probably wouldn't have been able to squeeze 30% out of the developers. But it wouldn't have affected usability.

this adds complexity. Maybe you think that complexity is warranted, but you have to understand that there is a cost to it.

You can always buy a product from someone else, or make your own if you think there is a demand that isn't being filled.

What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user? Surely allowing direct download of apps from the computer won't complicate things for those who don't want to bother?

Don't say "if you don't like it, don't buy it". Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy. Heck, even I used GMail until two years ago. Plus, even if they are so capable, there is a tragedy of the commons here: if you surrender your data, it could be crossed-reference with the other's, and it may end up affecting even those who didn't surrender their data (GMail is an obvious example: they collect data about whoever writes to their users, even when they host their own mail server). This is way, way more serious than your comment suggests.

"What complexity are you talking about? Surely having 2 or 3 app stores instead of one isn't too daunting for the user?"

It certainly is. The implementation from apple would be more complicated and more risky.

"Choice is not enough. Most people are just incapable of doing informed decision about privacy."

Um, we aren't talking about privacy, but if choice isn't enough then what exactly are you recommending?

Complexity: Apple already let 3rd parties in, so I'm not sure it would be significantly more complicated for anyone. Unless the presence of an additional icon is significant complexity, and there are some inherent complexity in letting the user have root permissions. Of course, 3rd parties applications could crash, but that is already the case.

Choice: to some extent, it is about privacy: Apple knows exactly what Apps you purchase. Anyway, I recommend regulation. First, the owner of any device whatsoever should be allowed to do whatever he wants with it, provided it wasn't illegal in the first place. We should also allow reverse engineering (doing it as well as publishing the results), even when it involves the discovery of "protections" such as cryptographic keys.

General-purpose computer system (which may include the OS) should be subjected to a more drastic regulation: as soon as there is any way to add or change functionality (mere firmware bug-fixes don't count), then the end user should be allowed and given the means to do it, at no additional cost, with no artificial restriction. Among other things, that would outlaw the monopoly that the App store currently enjoy over non jail-broken iPhones, and the restrictions Blizzard put over the creation of user-made maps for Starcraft 2 (they host the maps, and have discretion to delete them if they don't like it). Note: I don't mean to outlaw proprietary programs and OSes. But a program that is a tiny bit open should be at least that open to the end user.

The privacy side of things is more complicated, but boils down to one thing: private shenanigans should be kept private, end of story. E-mail is private. Chatting is private (even in a chat room with 10 or so people). Visiting a web site is private (between you and the web site owner). Restricted publications ("friends only") probably should be considered private as well. Servers who host private shenanigans should not be allowed to: log them, look at them (even if it is "just a machine"), aggregate them (except maybe in a reliably anonymous way, which is very hard to do). Well, you see the trend. Note that GMail, Facebook, and probably Blogger, in their current form, should totally be outlawed (heck, it applies to nearly all mail providers out there).

Note that privacy violations aren't less serious if they are performed by machines only. I don't care that "only machines" looked at my e-mail before sending me that specific ad. They still influenced me by using my private information.

"Complexity: Apple already let 3rd parties in, so I'm not sure it would be significantly more complicated for anyone."

I completely disagree, but I don't feel like spending 30 minutes writing a good explanation.

Please. This is my killer argument, and if you know of a way to defeat it, I really want to know. I wouldn't want miss such an opportunity to actually change my mind.

I agree, but the larger point I'm trying to make is that there is a reason we don't see good open devices in the market.

So many tech people complain about this issue, yet none have succeeded in making one. If so many people are sure there is a need that isn't being fulfilled, then why don't they fill the need?

> How would you feel if the car manufacturer attached locks to the hood of your car?

Interestingly cars are increasingly heading in this direction. The level of on-board electronics is raising the bar significantly on exactly who has the ability and equipment to service or fix a car. Even something as simple as resetting the service indicators often requires specialist equipment in newer models.