Software freedom and cognitive dissonance.

Andreas Jaeger on Novell’s GNU/Linux distribution discusses Novell’s decision to stop distributing proprietary kernel modules but speaks favorably of distributing proprietary software as a “user’s choice”. The difference between kernel modules and “userland” programs is easily lost when viewed in terms of a user’s software freedom.

Jaeger says that he agrees with Groklaw’s Pamela Jones who says that if we “pollute free-licensed open source software with secretive code, which we must with binary drivers, we lose what make GNU/Linux special – its openness and our freedom to control what happens on our computers”. But then Jaeger defends using proprietary programs because for him (and apparently for Novell) choice is paramount.

For another perspective which argues that this is unsurprising cognitive dissonance, read Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”.

Continue reading

Preposterous conclusions follow from preposterous questions.

Or, put differently, if you get people asking the wrong questions you don’t have to care about the answers they give.

The BBC reports on “Concerns over security software” and fails to account for the value of giving users software freedom.

The bottom line, according to Mr Day, is that when you download free security software you cannot be certain what you get.

But completely free security software may be a thing of the past when the new version of Windows hits the shops early next year.

In this article, the allowable range of debate extends from proprietary software you get gratis to proprietary software you have to pay to get. At no point does a user’s software freedom enter the debate. So with one sentence Mr. Day (and the BBC which uncritically repeats Day’s argument) establishes price as the most salient factor in determining trust.

The price at which you obtain “security software” is irrelevant. We in the free software movement are repeatedly told that most users “cannot be certain what [they] get” because most users are not programmers. So why should software freedom matter to them?

Continue reading

EFF says “Another Court Refuses to Dismiss NSA Spying Case”

The EFF says another court refuses to dismiss NSA spying case and that’s always good news. Two things for you to do to help:

  1. Call your Congresspeople and stop Sen. Spector from passing S. 2453 which would curtail exactly this kind of judicial oversight.
  2. Consider using GPG—the GNU Privacy Guard—if you feel the need to scramble your data or authenticate with cryptographic signatures. Don’t rely on proprietary encryption software. You’ll never know if you’re using something with a backdoor in it or something far weaker than you think it is. There are quite a few introductions to GPG online and a couple of books from O’Reilly if you prefer bound volumes (one older, one newer). GPG can’t prevent your phone records or Internet connections from being discovered, but it can make it more difficult to know what you said in email or what’s in your encrypted files.

What happens when corporations aren’t democratic: too much power in too few hands.

In what’s sure to be an ongoing series here about undemocratic control over institutions, I direct you to an article from MSNBC on Patricia Dunn, HP’s Board Chair, spying on her boardmembers home phone records in order to find out who’s been leaking info about HP’s plans to the press. One HP boardmember, Tom Perkins, says he was incensed about Dunn’s action so he packed up his suitcase and resigned from the board. Dunn reportedly acted alone in her decision:

It was classic data-mining: Dunn’s consultants weren’t actually listening in on the calls””all they had to do was look for a pattern of contacts. Dunn acted without informing the rest of the board. Her actions were now about to unleash a round of boardroom fury at one of America’s largest companies and a Silicon Valley icon. That corporate turmoil is now coming to light in documents obtained by NEWSWEEK that the Securities and Exchange Commission is currently deciding whether to make public. Dunn could not be reached for comment. An HP spokesman declined repeated requests for comment.

Update: Groklaw[1] reports that CNET reporter Dawn Kawamoto’s phone records were also a part of the operation for [writing] the article that angered HP’s chairwoman Patricia Dunn.

One is reminded about what Eben Moglen said about what to read into Bill Gates leaving Microsoft (transcript):

Continue reading

Ogg Vorbis is a wiser choice.

The BBC reports that Sisvel is targetting SanDisk for not paying their MP3 licensing fee. It’s a warning to users as well; users can be sued for patent infringement too. Paul Heckel, a software developer who held patents which allegedly covered something which was done in Apple’s Hypercard program. When Apple wouldn’t license his patents straight away, Heckel told Apple he’d threaten Apple’s users with patent infringement lawsuits and then Apple was compelled to negotiate a license fee with Heckel. Heckel could have done what the RIAA is doing now, albeit with patent infringement instead of copyright infringement.

The trouble SanDisk has with patents that cover ideas used in software is hardly new. Microsoft was recently sued by Eolas, a firm whose chief “product” is a patent covering a method of using plugins with web browsers. Microsoft had the money to fight that lawsuit but this is an uncommon privilege (and one wonders how much of Microsoft’s money is ill-gotten gain being the loser of the US’ largest antitrust lawsuit). Talk to most software developers in countries that have so-called “software patents” and you’ll find out they retard innovation and narrow the field of competition to the giants (as Bill Gates put it years ago in a famous memo). Consumers are not well served by software patents and neither is science in general. One might wonder if the same problems exist in other fields in which patents are granted.

According to Richard Stallman

In the 1980’s the Australian Government commissioned a study of the patent system. The patent system in general, not software patents. This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the patent system because it did very little good for society and cause a lot of trouble. The only reason they didn’t recommend [not establishing a patent regime] is that international pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents which was supposed to disclose information so that they would no longer be secret or in fact useless, for that purpose, engineers never looked at patents to try and learn anything because it’s too hard to read them. In fact they quoted that an engineer saying “I can’t recognize my own inventions in patents”.

Had people looked more closely at MP3 early on and recognized the trouble with MP3 being patent-encumbered, they might have chosen a technically superior format that does the same job and is not encumbered by patents: Ogg Vorbis. The specifications are available for anyone to implement, even commercially, without fee and there are encoders and decoders licensed under remarkably generous terms so that the use of Ogg Vorbis will spread.

While it is too late to avoid this problem with MP3s, we can encourage people to switch to unencumbered codecs. We have a chance to avoid this problem for other kinds of files such as word processor, spreadsheet, and slideshow presentation files by encouraging the use of Open Document Format instead of the formats which will be used by upcoming versions of Microsoft Office. The easiest way to do this work is to encourage the use of free software office programs such as OpenOffice.org and KOffice.

Update: Sandisk fought the seizure order overturned so Sandisk was able to show their products on the last day of an electronics fair. While one can be sued for anything, one can take steps to avoid being sued—avoid the apparent buzzsaw that is MP3 licensing and go with something less risky.

Kerala chooses GNU/Linux

The Indian state of Kerala has chosen to migrate to GNU/Linux and it was a visit from Richard Stallman that put free software over the top.

Free software guru Richard Stallman’s visit last week had nudged the schools to discard the proprietary software altogether, state education minister MA Baby told FE [Financial Express]. Stallman has inspired Kerala’s transition to free software on the lines of an exciting model of a Spanish province, which did the same, the minister said.

Local computer vendors will appreciate this sales opportunity, particularly after Microsoft’s recent sting operation executed there.

Not everyone runs MacOS X on Apple hardware.

After much bad press about Apple’s hardware failing including causing two instances of minor burns to people handling the machines, Apple has issued a recall on a bunch of bad batteries in their customer’s iBooks. Mike Pinkerton mentions a colleague’s Apple iBook battery won’t be recalled and asks

The odd thing is that all the tech notes tell you that to find the serial number on an iBook, you have to pry open the machine and look under the keyboard (ok, pry is exaggerating, but you get my drift). In reality, all you have to do is look in the System Profiler app; the serial number is listed on the main Hardware tab. I copied and pasted and it validated the serial number as an affected model, so I know it’s correct. Why wouldn’t Apple’s detailed tech notes mention this very simple alternative?

It would be a good idea to accomodate those that can get the serial number in software, just as Pinkerton says. However, not everyone using an Apple iBook runs MacOS X. Some run MacOS 9, some run free software operating systems including OpenBSD and GNU/Linux which have been ported to run on PPC hardware.

Bad batteries are a hardware issue; bad batteries will adversely affect all users regardless of operating system. If the hardware is warrantied without exception to one’s OS (as it should be), it makes sense to give directions that all iBook users can use, not just those running MacOS X. It would be unwise to exclusively list the software method for determining one’s serial number because this method would be vastly different in OSes and not available in some OSes.

30 Days of DRM

Prof. Michael Geist is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Prof. Geist is working on 30 Days of DRM where each day for 30 days he brings something new to your attention in an attempt to examine the restrictions and limitations the Canadian government should include if Canada adopts a DMCA-like law.

Here’s hoping no other countries get a DMCA-like law and the countries that have them overturn these laws immediately. What’s in this for you, as an ordinary computer user? A law that will give copyright holders the ability to enact digital copy restriction systems that never expires (even if the underlying copyrighted work eventually enters the public domain); copy restriction programs that are illegal to circumvent or to tell anyone how to circumvent.

Your freedom of speech is at issue, as is your ability to use what you legally obtained in a way that benefits you preserving your works, your culture, and your investment in others’ copyrighted works.

The consequences of following freedom versus convenience.

Fedora Core 5 GNU/Linux does not come with the latest version of the X11 GUI display software, software virtually everyone using this system runs and depends on for drawing a graphical display. Ante Karamatić doesn’t agree with the decision and asks

Fedora, remeber RMS and the GNU movment? Do you recall what OpenSource is?

The FSF is quite clear that the free software movement and the younger open source movement are not the same. For years they’ve published an essay about this and its consequences. Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html or get a copy of the essay in “Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman”.

As for how much should one accomodate proprietary software, Canonical has made their choice very clear.

Continue reading

You don’t have to act that way.

On Slashdot, a technical discussion site, a poster tried to convince the readers that because the Free Software Foundation (which wrote the GNU GPL and is a big player in the free software movement) and the Motion Picture Association have the same power as licensors or defenders of licenses, one must see them the same way—oppressors that can squash your freedom to share and modify at their whim.

I don’t think so.

Continue reading