full circle magazine #65
35
M
M
Y
Y
O
O
P
P
I
I
N
N
I
I
O
O
N
N
Written by Kevin B. O'Brien
T
he words we use to
describe what we do can
matter a lot in how we in
the FOSS community
think about what we do. Once
upon a time, there was Free
Software, as defined by Richard
Stallman in the famous Four
Freedoms:
• The freedom to run the program,
for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the
program works, and change it so it
does your computing as you wish
(freedom 1). Access to the source
code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute
copies so you can help your
neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies
of your modified versions to others
(freedom 3). By doing this you can
give the whole community a
chance to benefit from your
changes. Access to the source code
is a precondition for this.
Now, I happen to be a big
supporter of this. I love the idea of
Free Software. And I have noticed
that some people I greatly respect ,
such as Jon ‘maddog’ Hall, are
always careful to refer to it as Free
Software. Nonetheless, there are
problems with this terminology. If
you have been around FOSS for
very long, you have noticed that
the word “free” admits of several
meanings, one of which has to with
the cost. And that was never the
point in FOSS. There is nothing in
the definition of FOSS or in the
GPL that says you are prohibited
from charging for your software.
And, because of the ambiguity in
“free,” we have to be careful to use
“Free As In Freedom” to denote
what Stallman meant by the Four
Freedoms, as distinct from “Free
As In Beer” to denote lack of a
monetary price.
A later term was developed
called Open Source, which put the
focus on making the source code
freely available. Now, it is clear
from the Four Freedoms above
that this is essential to Free
Software, so I am not sure just how
big a difference this makes. But if
you want to explain to the average
user why any of this matters, you
have to acknowledge that the
average user really doesn’t care if
the source code is available since
they can never imagine themselves
tr yin g to modify the code. In point
of fact, I would expect that it is
highly likely that I will go to my
grave without ever attempting to
modify the code of any software I
use. I am not a programmer, and I
don’t have any desire to be one. I
like programmers, some of my best
friends are programmers, and the
world is undoubtedly a better
place because of programmers,
but I don’t think that is my role in
FOSS. So I don’t have a strong
interest in looking at the source
code. And to you in the back with
your hand up, I agree that it would
be silly to buy a car that had the
hood welded shut, but I don’t
repair my own cars either. Instead I
support the economy by helping a
mechanic to earn a semi-honest
living.
The term I have adopted for
this purpose is to call what we do
“Community-Supported Software,”
because I think that puts the
emphasis where it more properly
belongs, at least for some uses. If
we value this software, I think we
all have a responsibility to support
it in whatever way we can. Some
do that as programmers, but the
rest of us have a role to play. And I
want to explore some of those
options (and maybe motivate some
people to get involved). Because I
think it is true that freedom is
never free. It requires all of us to
take part in defending and
supporting it.
Bug Hunting
I’ve already mentioned that
Free Software should more
properly be considered
“Community-Supported” software,
and I said I would come back to
discuss just what that means.
There are lots of ways for
someone to support Free
Software, but one of the most
important is by submitting bugs to
the developers. Remember that
these fine people are creating
wonderful software with minimal
budgets, and that means they
cannot possibly test their software
under all possible conditions. Many
of us (myself included) build our