Advogato: The Binary Nature of Freedom

Instead of discussing software this month, we are going to take a look at the GPL (GNU General Public License). As most of you know, it is the license used by the Linux kernel as well as an overwhelming majority of the programs packaged with most distributions. Although the GPL is not a program in the traditional sense, it is like a program in that it is a non-trivial set of rules that dictates behavior. However, instead of running on a computer, it runs on the legal system of our society, and its purpose is to establish the preconditions necessary for the existence of a Free Software community.

"Community" is the key word here. No one doubts that Free Software -- software than can be freely used, copied, and modified -- can coexist with proprietary software. It's happening right now. However, without certain legal safeguards, it would be impossible for a substantially large Free Software community to flourish. The GPL is important, because it was the first license in the world to provide these safeguards.

However, in examining the GPL, the mechanics of how the GPL works will be of minor concern. This aspect is already well understood since it has been thoroughly studied by numerous legal experts. Instead, we're going to read between the lines of the GPL to find something hidden.

There is an underlying sense of freedom embodied by the GPL, but it has never been articulated due to its subtle nature. Yet, it's very real and could have a profound impact on human freedom. Best of all, there's nothing complicated about it. Even a child could understand the message, but this is actually sad in some ways. Are you curious yet about what you're missing? Then open your mind and open your heart, because...

"Anything essential is invisible to the eyes."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The Life of a GPL'd Program

Because we are trying to bridge the gap between software freedom and human freedom, the following lessons will personify GPL'd programs in order to help people relate to the ideas being presented.

Programs may not be people, but they are created by people, and as such they reflect the qualities of their creators. People may even be said to live vicariously through their programs as if their programs were an extension of the self. Of course, the software world works under different rules than the physical world, but it is through these differences that we will gain understanding. As you'll see, the rules of the software world make it easier to achieve freedom, but the struggle is fundamentally the same. Thus, one can think of software freedom as a metaphor for human freedom.

With that said, here are 2 lessons to be learned from the GPL. They're not in the text of the license, but they manifest themselves over and over again in the programs covered by the GPL, and they are the true source of its power.

0. Freedom comes from within.

Unlike most humans, a GPL'd program does not wait to be liberated. Upon release, a GPL'd program declares to the world that it is free, and so it is.

Programs are lucky, though. They don't have to go around begging their so-called authority figures for "partial" freedom. For one thing, they don't have any authorities to deal with. They don't have any concept of partial freedom, either. A program is either free or non-free.

Admittedly, humans have a harder challenge, because the stakes are higher. We do have authorities to deal with, and their willingness to use force is frightening. However, this should make it clear that freedom is not something that is granted to you from the outside. There's only one person in the world who can give you freedom, and that person is you.

1. Your freedom is your own responsibility.

When someone tries to take away the freedom of a GPL'd program, it defends itself. This angers some people, but any time you take a stand, it's bound to happen. Regardless, a GPL'd program holds its freedom to be sacred and guards it whenever challenged. Since the GPL's inception, there have been many attempts to make GPL'd code proprietary, but none are known to have succeeded. Makers of proprietary software are very wary of the GPL, because it could make their whole world come down.

The foundation of proprietary software is copyright law which is used to limit one's ability to use, copy, and modify software. Unfortunately for them, RMS (Richard M. Stallman) recognized this and made the GPL so that it had a clause that said: if you use GPL'd code in your software, then your code automatically becomes GPL'd the moment you try to redistribute it. Not so coincidentally, the GPL also uses copyright law as its foundation.

This gives people who are determined to incorporate GPL'd code into their proprietary software two options. They can either GPL their code, or they can try to fight it in court. However, by trying to undermine the GPL, they would have to undermine the whole institution of copyright. But without copyright law, proprietary software could not exist, so either way you look at it, Free Software wins. In chess, this is called checkmate.

However, not all licenses fight as hard as the GPL does. For example, software covered by the modified BSD license is free but has no qualms about being assimilated into proprietary software. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (see The Essential Role of BSD), but there's something to be said for being able to take a stand.

If you find this hard to accept, then think back to your childhood. Do you remember being bullied? If you couldn't stand up for yourself, didn't you wish you could? Experiences like these can change the course of your life -- it definitely changed mine.

Can you see, now, why freedom comes from within and nowhere else? This is the lesson of the GPL.

The Historical Impact of the GPL

Little do people realize how different the world would be had the GPL never existed. To understand this, though, one would have to study the history of the GPL and trace it back to its origins, so consider the following story.

In 1982, James Gosling wrote the first C-based Emacs called Gosmacs. Initially, Gosmacs was Free Software, but Gosling later sold it to a company called UniPress. However, Fen Labalme, a contributor to Gosmacs, told RMS that Gosling had given him special permission to distribute a free version, so RMS incorporated some of that code into GNU Emacs. However, when UniPress heard about this, they told RMS to stop distributing GNU Emacs. They denied that Fen had been given permission, and even worse, Fen had lost the message from Gosling that could have proved otherwise. Thus, RMS had to comply, but he wasn't happy about it. You have to realize that RMS had been working on Emacs since 1975, and then here comes this company out of nowhere, telling him to stop.

If all those years of work could be taken away this easily, RMS realized that the GNU project would be doomed to failure. Therefore, he had to find a way to protect himself and his work. This led to the creation of the Emacs General Public License in 1985 which later evolved into the GNU GPL in 1989.

It's interesting to note that the earliest ChangeLog entries for gcc (the GNU Compiler Collection) also date back to this era. Writing a C compiler is a huge undertaking, and RMS was the only man who was both willing and able to make a free one. But ask yourself: could he have done it were he still fearful of having his code taken away?

The power of the GPL is that it takes away this fear, and with this barrier destroyed, RMS had the peace of mind necessary for writing a free C compiler. And when he released it out to the world, it started a chain reaction which is still in effect today.

Where would GNU/Linux and the BSDs be without gcc? And could the explosion of Free Software and Open Source Software have happened without the widespread availability of free operating systems to work on? Could any of this have happened so quickly without the Web? And where would the Web be if Tim Berners-Lee didn't have a NeXT system to develop software on? The first web server and the first web browser were compiled on a NeXT system using gcc. The list goes on and on, and gcc was what made this all possible. And remember: the GPL was what made gcc possible.

So whether you realize it or not, whether you even use computers or not, your life has been affected by the GPL, because it changed the course of human history. The GPL isn't just powerful -- it's revolutionary. But pull a Windows user out of his chair and ask him about it, and chances are, he won't know what you're talking about.

There is a serious educational crisis here, but we will never solve it if we continue to demonize each other. See GNU Needs More Than Software for a strategy for positive change. Free Software has come a long way, but there is still a long way left to go.

A Fork In The Road Ahead

In the world we live in today, computers have become very important. I'm not always sure whether this is a good thing or not, but it is a fact of reality. Because of that, there is a great burden of responsibility on programmers to be honest, compassionate, and courageous people.

When this is not the case, what do you think happens? You get things like DVD Region Encoding which prevents you from watching a legally purchased DVD on a legally purchased DVD player, because you live in the wrong country. You get Digital Rights Management which might sound great, until the music cuts out after the 10th listen, and the content provider tells you to pay up. You get the U.S. Army making games and giving them away for your children to play. Imagine what kind of educational information is waiting for them. Taken a step further, you even get software that controls the real weapons of mass destruction. None of these exist to help you live a better life.

So why do they exist, then? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader, and while you reflect on that, let me say a few more things as this is my final contribution to this column.

I love you all from the bottom of my heart, because I know what you can become, and there are two sides to this. You can be free and happy and be the director of your own life, or you can be the complete opposite. Remember that there's no such thing as "partially" free. You're either free or you're not, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either fooling you or worse -- fooling themselves. This is the binary nature of freedom.

Thus, I urge you all to trust your hearts and walk in the right direction no matter how dark the path may be. Do not listen to those people who derisively tell you to get a life, because they have no idea what life is. The only person who can know how to live your life is you, so look within yourself and discover your true potential. And above all, no matter how hard it can be in this world of cruel and sadistic people...

BE PROUD OF WHO YOU ARE.

SIDEBAR 1:
The Essential Role of BSD

Both the modified BSD license and the GPL allow people to freely use, copy, and modify software. Their fundamental difference is in their treatment of proprietary software. While programs licensed under the GPL are protected from becoming proprietary, programs that are covered by the modified BSD license can be incorporated into proprietary software without any problem. From the BSD perspective, this is true freedom.

GPL advocates don't quite see it that way, but they also recognize that the modified BSD license can be the right license to use in certain situations where widespread adoption could be helpful.

Consider the TCP/IP stack from BSD. It's well known that Microsoft took it and used it as the basis for implementing Internet support for Windows. This makes some people cringe and worry, but maybe they shouldn't. Microsoft may think they have the Internet. But maybe the Internet has Microsoft. We'll see what happens.

If the GPL provides the checkmate, then the modified BSD license plays the role of the positional sacrifice. It's a risky but often necessary move.

go back

SIDEBAR 2:
GNU Needs More Than Software

For all of RMS's good qualities -- his honesty, integrity, and courage -- he has areas which might be more successful with slight adjustment. It seems RMS doesn't have a good understanding of human emotions. Perusing his comment history on various forums, mailing lists, and USENET, he is often noted as being abrasive. This doesn't mean he's out to hurt people. To the contrary, he wants to help people, but sometimes he may be trying too hard in the wrong direction.

One example of this is the "GNU/Linux" naming issue. RMS thinks that the GNU project is not getting the credit it deserves, so he goes around asking people to say "GNU/Linux" instead of just "Linux". This angers a lot of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to the GNU project, but RMS chooses to ignore this. The most disturbing part is when people, who are otherwise very supportive of GNU, start flaming RMS and wishing he'd just shut up and go away. However, this is counterproductive.

RMS has helped us tremendously, and for that we should be grateful. Now, it is our turn to help him and not hurt him. Let the following email be an example.

To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> From: John Beppu <beppu@cpan.org>

A baby is born, but he can not run right away. Before he can run, he must learn to walk. Before he can walk, he must learn to stand. And before he can stand, he must learn to crawl. This is the natural order of things.

However, when you ask people to say "GNU/Linux", it's like asking newborn babies to run when they are not equipped to do so. Looking at all the "Linux" distributions, there is only one that is willing to call itself "GNU/Linux" and that is Debian. Not surprisingly, they are steadfast in their commitment to Free Software, and it is precisely for this reason that they are able to say "GNU/Linux" -- not the other way around.

Instead of demanding that people say "GNU/Linux", it might be more productive for you to expend more energy towards elucidating the benefits of Free Software rather than staunchly adhering to "the name issue". The name issue is clearly important, but most people who are intellectually honest will be glad to say "GNU/Linux" once they understand why they should. My suggestion, if you care to consider it, is that you will probably see better results if you find more direct ways of explaining why GNU is important. Perhaps my essay, "The Binary Nature of Freedom", can be helpful to that end.

Peace and Blessings

go back

SIDEBAR 3:
Resources