EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.15.19

Software Freedom and The U.S. Constitution

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, Law at 5:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By figosdev

US Constitution

Summary: “We need to stand for the freedom to not use the software — we need to enjoy that freedom without giving up the rest of the existing Free software ecosystem.”

I think it’s unlikely that Stallman was considering the Constitution as the primary inspiration for the Free Software Definition. One reason I think it’s unlikely is I’ve never read that he did, and he’s the sort of person to say so more than once. But whether intentionally or inadvertently, I think what he did is actually create a constitution for software users.

The United States Constitution represents the nature of the American government, according to the will of the people. This is the nicest way of putting it, as a “2/3 majority” is not exactly what people sometimes assume it is. All the same, the British monarchy invites someone to create a government — and in the Constitution, Americans provide their consent to the government’s existence.

In order for this consent to be reached, a list of amendments had to be added. The states would not agree to ratify the Constitution if it created too much centralised authority, and the Bill of Rights was a list of deal-breakers — they were freedoms that were demanded before consent would be given.

“I think it’s unlikely that Stallman was considering the Constitution as the primary inspiration for the Free Software Definition.”Obviously, I am not going to propose that the Free software Definition is like the Constitution in every way. But I think some of the similarities are instructive, or at least interesting.

The Free software Definition began with three freedoms, including the rights to study, change and share any software that met this definition. If a law violates the Constitution, it is invalid and should be struck down. If software comes with a license that denies one of these freedoms, it is considered non-free and should either be avoided or (according to those who consider software freedom more ethically imperative than license restrictions) disobeyed. Personally, I prefer to avoid using software that doesn’t offer the freedoms in the FSD.

As to what gives people any moral right to disobey a software license that denies the user the rights to control their own computer, it goes back to the idea that just laws should be followed, but unjust laws should not. Who decides which laws are which? Ultimately, it is the people whose decision matters. Sure, that complicates things, but that is the nature of ethics.

“As to what gives people any moral right to disobey a software license that denies the user the rights to control their own computer, it goes back to the idea that just laws should be followed, but unjust laws should not.”I am generally happy to simply boycott non-free software or at least work to remove it from the computers that I control, because I believe we create a better world for computer users and even developers when we do this. But when it comes to other works, such as books and movies and music, disobeying unjust laws becomes very important and also extremely common — almost universal. So unless you wish to plead a very special case for obeying unjust software licenses, I can’t fully disagree with at least the concept of disobeying them, even if I think there are more practical (even generally safer, one might add wiser) alternatives like using Free software instead.

The most common protest of this reasoning is that who is going to pay artists or programmers for their work? What Stallman says about this with regards to software development is well known.

With regards to artists, it is probably easier to make money (on average) as a musician now than at any other point in history, and people have more unpaid access to music than at any point in history as well. The existence of free libraries has the effect of increasing, rather than diminishing author revenue, because libraries lead to better book sales. Even if you’ve read a book, the odds are increased you will buy that book as a gift, and so on. These facts fly in the face of rhetoric from monopolists and copyright expansionists.

There are also ways for programmers to make money that don’t involve the very predatory nature of end-user-license agreements and non-free software licenses.

Just as the Constitution and Bill of Rights outlined a system that the people were willing to consent to, the Free software Definition outlines a system that free users and developers are willing to participate in. For those who believe Free software is vital, they do not consent to software licenses that violate the Four Freedoms.

Of course it is Four Freedoms now, because like the Constitution, the Free software Definition was eventually amended to include the freedom to use the software, for any purpose. So we had the freedom to study, change, share the software — plus the obvious freedom to use the software.

“There are also ways for programmers to make money that don’t involve the very predatory nature of end-user-license agreements and non-free software licenses.”It’s not very practical to study, change or share the software if it can’t be used, but adding the freedom to use the software clarifies an important point — the freedom to use the software can be unreasonably limited. DRM made the arguably implicit freedom to use worth clarifying and making explicit. But does it limit the freedom to change the software?

A sophist may tell you that the freedom to change the software includes the freedom to change it so that other people can’t use it. This is sophistry because that comes down to the freedom to limit the freedom of others. The freedom to change the software never really included the freedom to change it so that others can’t use it, because the freedom to change it also implies the freedom of others to change it so they can use it.

“A sophist may tell you that the freedom to change the software includes the freedom to change it so that other people can’t use it. This is sophistry because that comes down to the freedom to limit the freedom of others.”Which is more relevant to freedom, really–the freedom to change the software so people can’t use it, or the freedom to change it so people can? Clearly if you have the freedom to change it, you have the freedom to change it so you can use it! So freedom 0 is not an amendment that violates freedom 3 (or at least, I firmly believe this is better reasoning than the alternative.)

With regards to an amendment that says you have the freedom to NOT run the software, a freedom 4, I will apply the same kind of reasoning. Let’s look at the exact wording of Peter Boughton’s freedom 4 as I’ve tailored it to fit the Four Freedoms:

The freedom to NOT run the software, to be free to avoid vendor lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies; meaning any Free software can be replaced with a user’s preferred alternatives (freedom 4).

And here are the exact original words for comparison:

Here would be my fifth: replace – the freedom to not run the software, to be free to avoid vendor lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies – meaning any Free software can be replaced with a user’s preferred alternatives.

“Up till now, Linux has greatly benefited from the integration / componentization model pushed by previous UNIX’s. Additionally, the organization of Apache was simplified by the relatively simple, fault tolerant specifications of the HTTP protocol and UNIX server application design.” https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween1.html

Let’s look at these key words, which are bound to be disputed as compatible with the existing freedoms:

A. “the freedom to not run the software,”

B. “to be free to avoid vendor lock-in through appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies -”

C. “meaning any Free software can be replaced with a user’s preferred alternatives.”

Regarding A., if you have the freedom to change the software (freedom 3), which is more important — the “freedom” to change the software so users have no choice but to run it, or the freedom to change it so you have the choice?

Regarding B., if you have the freedom to change the software, which is more important — the freedom to change the software so as to avoid vendor lock-in, or the freedom to change the software to create it?

Regarding C., which is more important, the freedom to change the software so components can be changed or replaced, or the freedom to change it so that components cannot be?

“If you look around, you can see people spending years to remove lock-in created by very deliberate and obvious (and of course, sometimes denied but sometimes, even gloated about!) effort to force people to use the software.”It is sophisty to claim that Free software authors have a right to create increasing amounts of lock-in. The more lock-in they create, the less free the user is — the less control they have over their computing.
Taken to its extreme, the user has no freedom 3 at all. So why would we call it “freedom” when suddenly it is only halfway there? There is no crime on Earth which does not suffer from similar pedantry used to deny the problem — all the way up to people and governments not taking action against genocide because essentially, “how do we know it’s really genocide if some of them are still around?”

“OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.” https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween1.html

As with freedom 0, the freedom to use outweighs any “freedom” to change software so as to lock out the user with Tivoisation. With freedom 4, the freedom to choose not to use outweighs the “freedom” to change in a way that forces people to use software.

As to whether people are being “forced” to use software via lock-in, again, that’s the hardest thing to prove, but that doesn’t mean you can’t tell. If you look around, you can see people spending years to remove lock-in created by very deliberate and obvious (and of course, sometimes denied but sometimes, even gloated about!) effort to force people to use the software.

“There are similar problems with the Constitution today.”The freedom to not use the software was for most of our history, implicit until these attacks came along 5 or more years ago. The fifth freedom makes that freedom explicit.

The freedom to to use the software was also implicit, at least with Free software, until DRM came along. It was most likely DRM that made freedom 0 necessary to reinforce the other three freedoms. It is considered more fundamental — it supports the other freedoms.

The freedom to not use the software supports the freedom to change the software. If you are being effectively forced to use software, if your entire software ecosystem is being attacked in a way that makes it take half a decade to remove the offending software, if running away from it and boycotting it only results in it steamrolling through every distro you try, even the ones that exist specifically for the purpose of avoiding it — then you have a real problem.

“The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress to abridge the freedom of speech.”There are similar problems with the Constitution today. For both the Constitution and the Free software ecosystem, the overarching reason that freedom is threatened is that both the country and Free software are being taken over by the same monopolistic entities that Free software (and the United States) were created to resist.

The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. It is from this freedom of speech that software freedom (software is, very easily, a form of speech — it is a written work, and as some of us argue it ought to be as unabridged as the right to do mathematics) is easiest and most obvious to justify as a human right.

And yet worse in terms of precedents than abridging free speech is compelled speech. Compelled speech has its ethical domain in P.O.W. camps and totalitarian regimes, the sort of regimes that Microsoft has enjoyed creating with its software. Do not turn off your computer, we will these run updates now, whether you need to turn it off or not. Compelled speech violates the freedom of thought, not just the freedom of speech.

“We’ve seen Microsoft play this game before, and they’re very good at it. When it works, Microsoft wins a monopoly lock. Customers lose.” https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween1.html

“Of course we should resist compelled software, with the same disdain and distrust we reserve for compelled speech. The alternative to this compelled software continues to be attacked and eroded.”Compelled software is the theft your CPU cycles, a denial of service attack on the installment plan. If you decide to spend those cycles, that’s one thing. But traditionally, software that uses those cycles without the permission of the user was called malware.

Of course we should resist compelled software, with the same disdain and distrust we reserve for compelled speech. The alternative to this compelled software continues to be attacked and eroded.

The legitimacy and the institution of those who claim to stand for software freedom is hurt when they excuse increasing and incessant attempts to compel oppressive and overbearing corporate software, as much as it hurts the legitimacy and office of a president who signs unconstitutional laws and orders. These are people who speak of freedom, while signing it away in our name. And they ought to be impeached for it, but at the very least they should be roundly criticised and condemned.

Freedom 0, to use the software for any purpose, could be said (metaphorically) to go back at least as far as the Declaration of Independence and that the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I am aware that “Happiness” meant “wealth” and I am taking a few liberties with this metaphor, to be certain. The Constitution and the Declaration were not the first things of their kind at any rate, as with GNU they also took some inspiration from older documents and systems.

“The original goal of the patent system for example, was to give incentive for people to document their inventions and avoid relying as heavily on trade secrets.”Freedom 1, the freedom to study the software, is the very basis of science, education and free thinking. Article I of the Constitution offers the only justification for the monopolies of today as “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts…” The original goal of the patent system for example, was to give incentive for people to document their inventions and avoid relying as heavily on trade secrets.

It was intended to increase the ability of people to study and improve (change) inventions, rather than lock them up indefinitely. This is why all monopolies that Congress may grant can only be granted “for limited times.” All inventions are intended to enter the public domain, and the monopolies are granted as an incentive to help that along and encourage contribution to that public domain.

Freedom 2, the freedom to share the software, was inherent to all works during the framing the Constitution — all works were in the public domain, and no real restriction on sharing them (only publishing, not even non-commercial copying) existed. In fact for the first 204 years of the existence of the USA, until 1980, there was no restriction on sharing software, as copyright did not apply to software at all until that year.

Freedom 3, the freedom to change the software, is built into the constitution as well.

As with freedom 3 in the Free software Definition, this constitutional freedom is one of the originals, as found in Article V. You could call this “The fifth freedom of the Constitution” (rather than the Fifth Amendment) as Article V. states, among few other things:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

In plain English, the Constitution itself can be amended either by Congress, or if Congress is corrupt or otherwise uncooperative, “when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof”.

By this process, not only can you change the laws (the software) but the Constitution itself; even if the federal government is corrupt or otherwise uncooperative.

Article V not only lets you change the software, it gives you the freedom to not run it, and even the ability to peacefully dissolve the government itself.

“Article V not only lets you change the software, it gives you the freedom to not run it, and even the ability to peacefully dissolve the government itself.”On paper at least, there is no freedom that Americans do not enjoy. But despite having that freedom on paper, we know that corporations deny us basic freedoms every day. They are entrenched, and our lack of greater attention to freedom costs us our wealth, our health and indeed our freedom.

The freedom to not use the software is implied in the freedom to change it, but freedom 0 was added to clarify and codify what was implicit before.

To fulfill freedom 3, we should now clarify and codify the freedom to not run the software that was implicit until it was (as with DRM violating what is now freedom 0) so thoroughly and routinely violated and threatened for years now, until the present day.

I happen to think that the wording of freedom 4 is acceptable as it is, but the freedom to not use the software must remain inviolate, and it is time we stood for that freedom and (as we do regarding other forms of non-Free software.)

Remember that it is the Constitution that outlines your freedom in the United States, and the laws that try to make it work. The laws of the nation are not what fundamentally define your freedom.

Similarly, it is the Free software Definition, not Free software licenses, that actually define your freedom as a proponent of Free software. GPL 2 left you “free in license only” when it came to Tivoisation, and GPL 3 fixed that to protect freedom 0 better than the GPL ever had previously.

“Licenses do not guarantee freedom. They try to make it work.”This is very important:

Tivoisation, despite GPL 2 demonstrates that compliance with the GPL could not by itself prove that your software is sufficiently free.

It is just as ridiculous to say that an act’s compliance with American law proves that you are free.

If software is compliant with the latest version of the GPL, that provides good evidence that it is Free software, but it is not proof.
Licenses do not guarantee freedom. They try to make it work.

Software must comply with the Four Freedoms at least, in order to be Free software.

“Software must comply with the Four Freedoms at least, in order to be Free software.”In other words, it is possible to have software under the GPL 2 or (potentially even the) GPL 3 license, that actually violates freedom 3.

“The objective is to make the new protocols a checklist item for gullible corporate buyers, while simultaneously making the writing of third-party symbiotes for Microsoft programs next to impossible. (And anyone who succeeds gets bought out.)” https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween1.html

“We need to stand for the freedom to not use the software — we need to enjoy that freedom without giving up the rest of the existing Free software ecosystem.”What is not possible to say without question is “of course it respects your freedom, it is under a free license.” This is a fallacious dismissal, and can be made in error. People who rely on this argument to prove software is free really should recognise that it is unsound and already once shown to be untrue. This doesn’t dispute that GPL compliance is a very good indicator, in most instances, but it does not automatically mean that your software is free.

We need to stand for the freedom to not use the software — we need to enjoy that freedom without giving up the rest of the existing Free software ecosystem. Another way of saying exactly that, is that we need modularity, or “appropriate modularization/encapsulation and minimized dependencies” in order for the user to be free.

Long Live Stallman, and Happy Hacking.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Microsoft is Going to Get Tired of Whining About “GAFA” and Accept That It's Just as Bad If Not a Lot Worse at Privacy

    Microsoft is being treated by the US government as if it's not abusing anything, let alone people's privacy; if anything, this demonstrates the degree to which Microsoft infiltrated or 'vendor-captured' regulatory branches



  2. Links 6/7/2020: LibreOffice 7.0 RC1, MX-19.2 KDE Beta 1, Linux 5.8 RC4

    Links for the day



  3. ZDNet's 'Linux' Section: Linux is Full of Problems and It Loves/Embraces Software Patents

    Software patents promotion and GNU/Linux FUD; your daily dosage of 'news' from the tabloid known as ZDNet...



  4. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, July 05, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, July 05, 2020



  5. Links 5/7/2020: Slackel 7.3 Mate Beta and GNOME Gingerblue

    Links for the day



  6. Technological Progress? Only If We Assume The Wrong Things...

    When we're told that we're all dumb we're being given increasingly dumb technology (and they tell us dumber is better)



  7. Linux Foundation Still Owned and Controlled Largely -- and More Over Time -- by Surveillance Companies (Openwashing Services for Bad Practices and Bad Actors)

    The Linux Foundation‘s growing role in spying or the focus on data-mining operations is an eternal reminder or warning that the Foundation follows power and money, not freedom or ethics (it began as a salary-paying venture, crowdfunding among large corporations which conduct mass surveillance)



  8. Sharing is Caring, as Those Who Share Usually Care

    Going back to our human roots, people who cooperate and collaborate are vastly more likely to survive and thrive; Free software is almost guaranteed to become the norm when/once everyone demands it (proprietary software is too divisive, supremacist and even racist)



  9. Systems Can Crash and People Can Die by Changing Language (Even in Parameter and Function Space) to Appease Activists

    It seems clear that Intel takes the lead in trying to change Linux not in technical means but purely social means; even when (and where) that can compromise the robustness of the kernel (Intel is nowadays known for profoundly defective chips with back doors)



  10. António Campinos Should Speak to Peasants, Not Litigation Lawyers

    Mr. Campinos does not work for campinos but against campinos; he represents the people who sue or threaten them using ludicrous patents that should never have been granted (e.g. in Ethiopia)



  11. Christine Lambrecht (German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection) Ignores the Fact That Even Patent Experts Reject the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The debacle single-handedly caused by and attributable to Christine Lambrecht, who is eager to appease litigation lawyers, is made yet worse by the fact that people in this domain/profession reject what she's trying to ram down people's throats



  12. [Humour] The Linux Foundation is Not Even Using Linux

    The Linux Foundation does not support Linux except in name; it is important to remember that



  13. Microsoft Loves Power

    An explanation of why Microsoft says it loves this and that; Microsoft lacks the capacity to love or to express empathy as it's always about self gratification or coercion, nothing else



  14. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, July 04, 2020

    IRC logs for Saturday, July 04, 2020



  15. Indoors Society, Shut the Windows

    Times are changing in all sorts of ways; it seems like GNU/Linux and other Free/libre operating systems may emerge as winners when the 'dust settles'



  16. Allegation That Microsoft Adopted the Mentality of Suicide Bombers Against Linux, Leaks Reveal

    Looking at leaked E-mails from around the time Microsoft used Cyanogen as a 'proxy', we're finding some stunning admissions or speculation about the real motivations



  17. [Humour] A Union in Whose Interests?

    The union-busting 'yellow union' (the one that helped Benoît Battistelli marginalise SUEPO) is unable to represent staff any longer



  18. FFPE EPO Has Rendered Itself Obsolete by Liaising With Benoît Battistelli

    FFPE EPO has been left out of staff representation, demonstrating that liaising with the oppressor is a self-deprecating move which must be avoided (the only remaining potent union is SUEPO)



  19. Links 4/7/2020: LibreOffice 7.0 'Personal Edition', Atari VCS Coming Soon

    Links for the day



  20. [Humour/Meme] The 'New' Edge (Chrome Copycat) is Already Dead, So Microsoft is Trying to Just Kill the Competition

    Edge market share is so minuscule that it doesn’t even make it into this chart (it’s in “other”); no wonder Microsoft now bullies Windows users into using it, for users reject it even after months of endless advertising/AstroTurfing and aggressive exploitation/appropriation



  21. Fourth of July in the United Kingdom and the United States

    In these bizarre times Independence Day is still being celebrated, even as so many people are out of work, running out of hope and being fed xenophobia in social control media with a racist 'celebrity' president (the "user in chief")



  22. [Humour] Bigger is Always Better When You're a Deluded Maximalist

    The EPO totally lost sight of its mission; it's just speeding everything up, very carelessly, not minding quality and accuracy/certainty/legal validity



  23. 'Managing Intellectual Property' Managing to Become Uncritical Parrot of EPO Management

    Managing to amplify the EPO's lies isn't hard; one just needs to copy, paste, edit a little; then they call it 'journalism', irrespective of the proven track record of EPO management lying to staff and to the media



  24. IRC Proceedings: Friday, July 03, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, July 03, 2020



  25. Monopoly Abuse, Still: Microsoft Pays Projects to Embrace/Move to C#, GitHub and Visual Studio

    Microsoft's greatest of efforts to lull regulators into inaction and fool us all into thinking that things have changed are undone by actual behaviour, which is abusive, anti-competitive and just... typical Microsoft



  26. Links 4/7/2020: Grml 2020.06 and diffoscope 150 Released

    Links for the day



  27. [Humour/Meme] Don't Let a COVID Crisis Go to Waste When You're Eager to Find Excuses for Many Layoffs and Shutdowns

    Microsoft business units that were defunct (long-failing, well before COVID-19) are being thrown out and Microsoft exploits a virus to rationalise these decisions while spicing up media coverage with "Hey Hi" (AI) and "virtual" experience or Facebook (to give the false impression that nothing really goes away)



  28. Free Software Tackles Political Issues. Political Tactics Are Also Being Weaponised Against Free Software.

    Divide-and-rule tactics seem to have been exploited to weaken collaborative work on Free/libre software; the response to these tactics needs to start with realisation that this is going on (even if it's done in a somewhat clandestine nature)



  29. Offence and Racism

    o those in positions of power and privilege (financial) you are controllable by guilt; dividing us and causing us to feel guilt and fear (over potential offence) is a powerful social control mechanism and pretext for dismissal, censorship, humiliation



  30. Links 3/7/2020: TrueNAS 12 Beta 1, Librem 13 Product Line

    Links for the day


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts