Ask HN: Do you believe in GNU's Free Software?

> ...

> Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.

Yes, I do. And every day I'm reminded of how right and how forward thinking Stallman has been all along.

It's really a matter of freedom vs price.

At this point it's not even about software alone, it's about software and hardware. You literally cannot trust most of the TVs you buy not to spy on you because you can't inspect the software, and there is no way to load a modified version of it.

You are forced to throw away perfectly functioning stuff (sonos speakers for example iirc?) because the software will refuse to work. Stuff you paid with your own money. And the e-waste, the pollution!

And so on and so forth... On many other topics.

Do you have a source for this? His writings and talks are extensive and I have not seen an instance where he makes this argument. He's said evil and not evil, moral and immoral, but I've never seen him make a constitutional argument. I've never seen him lobby to even make proprietary software illegal.

> So my question is twofold: do we believe that FOSS is a right

Would this right to Free Software be absolute where our other rights are not? Let's say we made Free Software a constitutional right. What about Germany? What about Japan? Would we outlaw the use of nonfree software from those countries? Why stop at software? What about copyright and patents? Isn't in immoral to not copy and share a textbook with someone? To try to only solve this at the level of rights it ignores the sociological and economic solutions and impacts as well.

> where do we draw the line between dedicating our lives to fighting for FOSS, and only using it when its completely convenient.

So to be in favor of Free Software I have to dedicate my life to it? If that's the case then I draw the line at the very beginning. I'm not dedicating my life to Free Software, or even to software for that matter. If you mean am I willing to give FOSS the first look and even ignore some of its warts to use it over proprietary software? Then I do that almost 100% of the time. Am I going to to release any software I have control over under a free license? I do that 100% of the time. I jump through A LOT of hoops to try to use as much FOSS as possible. But... I enable DRM in Firefox and install ffmpeg and nonfree codecs so I can watch streams instead of using Chrome. I use Steam on Linux and use Proton instead of just installing Windows. My life _could_ be a lot simpler if I didn't try to support FOSS as much as possible.

Also, there has been a lot of really cool and really interesting work done in FOSS since the FSF. Like I said my job is almost entirely based on and around FOSS. If you would've told me that in 1998 when I first installed Red Hat for the first time I wouldn't have believed you. I would've hoped it would've been true, but it seemed like a dream. There are so many interesting ideas around FOSS. To focus on the narrow definition and work of just the FSF is a mistake.

That is, I see "open source" as primarily an assertion that "open source" practices lead to better software. Eg, the argument that people will submit patches, documentation, etc. 'for free', or that the wider user base for no-cost open source software will lead to additional sources of revenue like consulting and support work for that software.

My experience has been that no, they don't.

On the other hand, "open source" can certainly be used as a sales loss-leader, or as way to commoditize one's complement (https://www.gwern.net/Complement ), and it gets the umbrella of terms like "community" and "volunteer contributions" that mask what Zed Shaw correctly refers to as "Begger Barons" (https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/ ). ("The Beggar Barons aren't stealing this labor though, they're just using unscrupulous business practices and social manipulation to beg for free labor.")

> Is free software a lost cause?

I don't see a way that I can support myself and family with a business model built on free software-only I tried and it failed. And the problems seem insurmountable.

Like, if you sell free software, how do you let people demo it? How do you provide discounts to academics?

So, yes, it's a lost cause. At least not until we have Universal Basic Income. ;)

But with that said, if you don't have to worry about money or reputation, then yes, GPLv3 it!

Just bear in mind that if it's useful then you'll get people begging you to switch to MIT or similar permissive license ... so they can use it, in their commercial projects, and not have to worry about finicky license details or ethical arguments.

> If we believe in things like right to repair, must we also believe in free software?

Right-to-repair might restore the right to fix the software in your car. I wasn't aware that it also gave you the right to take the modified software and sell it to others.

> Is using free software for financial benefit and then not contributing back simply by promoting and using free software immoral?

Stallman says "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" is freedom 0 of the four freedoms of free software.

So, no.

> Are we building a bad future for software by not fighting for something like the Free Software movement?

I do not wish to die on the cross of St. IGNUcius.