My Indomitable Thoughts on GNU, Linux, Open Source, Java and Free Cats and Dogs

Recently, when I ran a transcript of a talk given by Richard Stallman at the Australian National University, I never expected to get any adverse remarks about him and on the views expressed by him on problems faced by the free software community. But that was not to be. I was appalled to find a lot of comments ridiculing RMS for the views aired by him on various sensitive topics.

In fact, the sheer number of these negative comments make me feel that these were made not by free software users but by people who have a stake in proprietary software and they were making these comments posing as GNU users to spread FUD among potential free software converts. In real life, I have yet to come across a person who finds use for free software and who hold negative views about the leaders who made this possible. And if somebody does that, I would call it crass opportunism. RMS, Linus Torvalds, Bruce Perens, Alan Cox and many others have made great contribution in the evolution of GNU and open source movement to its present form.

But let us analyse what RMS said in his talk. His comment that Linus was apolitical when taken within the larger context of his appeal to give GNU equal credit makes perfect sense. Linus has himself gone on record saying that he hates playing politics and would like his software to speak for itself. In fact, Linus Torvalds and RMS think in entirely different planes. When the former likes to limit himself to the technical aspects of the free software , the latter thrives more in the political plane. But by doing so, they both play a very significant role in the betterment of the free software community. While Linus works to improve the Linux kernel making it more robust, RMS acts more like a watch dog for the free software community. He keeps track of the changes wrought by the powerful proprietary lobby and cries wolf when he sees one - like changes in laws which threaten one's freedom.

And much of what RMS said in his talk makes perfect sense. Take java for instance. Presently, Sun has a major say in shaping the future of Java language. It has not released the the implementation libraries under an open licence be it GPL or open source. Now there would have been no cause for concern if things remain the same even in the future. But what happens in 10 or 15 years from now, in the advent when Sun finds it difficult to stay afloat and gets acquired by say Microsoft ? Corporate acquisitions happen all the time. If an Adobe can acquire its arch rival Macromedia, what is stopping Microsoft from getting a controlling stake in Sun Microsystems? Will the language Java remain the same as it is now? Will the programs created in Java continue to run on Linux as it does now? For any language to thrive, it should be open and no single corporation should have a dominant say in chalking out its direction. And for Java to be really free, it has to be immune to corporate acquisitions. When you take this into consideration, what RMS said about Java not being truly free makes perfect sense.

The proprietary software lobby consider GNU as their arch enemy. If the free software movement gets adopted by the masses, then that will spell the death-knell for many of the non-free software firms as there won't be a market for their products. So they utilize every opportunity to attack the moves made by GNU and open source group.

When RMS talks about Treacherous Computing, we'd better sit up and take notice. Just going through the list of computer models with in-built treacherous computing chip should give a broad idea of the extent to which this has creeped into our lives. True, DRM is just a technology and the technology in itself is not bad. But the ways in which this technology is put to use by the corporations to stifle ones freedom is what prompts leaders like RMS to rally against this technology.

I believe GNU and open source to be the two sides of the same coin. Where open source has proved itself as a successful business model, GNU has remained stead fast in safeguarding the freedom of its users. Open source needs the strength of GNU ideology to maintain its focus in providing robust software and GNU in turn will benefit from the large collection of open source software under its fold. And it will be in the larger interests of the freedom loving users if open source and GNU sink their minor differences and act in synergy with each other.

It is a common misconception that free software stands for free as in free cats and dogs. That is not true. GNU doesn't say that one cannot sell or make money off the software one releases under GPL. Only that one has to make available the source code of the program to the user on demand. When you think about it, to even move an atom or molecule, one has to expend energy. And it is fundamentally wrong to expect some thing free of cost. Because what you got for free, another would have slogged to create it and you are actually enjoying the fruits of another person.

So the big question is how does one pay for the free software one uses? Interestingly, money is only one form of payment. There are other forms of payment like doing a favor in return for the convenience of your freedom. For example, one can spread the word about free software and open source. One can hand out CDs of GNU/Linux to ones friends, colleagues and relatives and persuade them to use it. I believe that by writing about free software on this blog, I am paying back to the free software community for the excellent software that I use.

Free software and open source have advanced so much that money has become a minor issue for it.Take the case of Wikipedia - the open and free encyclopedia which anyone can edit. When they were in need of funds, money started pouring in from all quarters and they were able to raise over 100,000 US dollars in a matter of weeks. What the GNU movement desperately need to make further inroads into the desktop market is more publicity and awareness which, as a user of free software, each one of us can provide. And if each one of us take it upon us to spread the word, I believe it will make a marked difference.