It's not often I read something inspiring. Especially when it comes to open source software. Maybe I'm a cynic (that can be read as just "I'm a cynic" if you like), but I find that yammering on about licensing minutiae and patent complaints depress me rather than inspire me. So it was a shocker when I read Miguel de Icaza's most recent blog post, "World Views".
Oof. I mean--wow. There are head-turners and there are head-turners, and this is the latter. Perhaps what Miguel elaborated upon in that post has been said before, I don't know. But I think that he's hit upon something crucial. I think he has put into words the bright dividing line between open source as I see it (and, though I don't want to put words in his mouth, as it seems that Miguel himself sees it) and free software as folks like Richard Stallman see it.
Richard Stallman's "free software", the "freedom" embraced by BoycottNovell and friends, is "You can't. You shouldn't."
Our--okay, my, but work with me here--"open source" is "You can. You should, if you want to."
Look at the Free Software Foundation's website. Look at their sponsored campaigns. To their credit, the FSF sponsors many positive campaigns that offer real benefits and real solutions. EndSoftPatents and their anti-ACTA work is notable and worthy of praise--but that's not what gets a lot of press, even from the FSF themselves. What the FSF does push heavily is a bunch of "you can't" and "you shouldn't." BadVista. DefectiveByDesign. Windows7Sins. RMS's continued railing against Mono. Even their "support" of OpenDocument is largely structured as nothing more than a negative shouting match about Office Open XML.
These campaigns of negativity are waged because their targets are not "free" as the FSF has redefined the word1. They're "bad"--even when they work as well, or better, than the alternatives that are "free" as the FSF has redefined the word. It's wrong to use what works better. Why? Because the FSF doesn't like it. Mono-based applications like Tomboy (awesome) and Banshee (likewise awesome) should be pulled from Ubuntu. Why? Because the FSF doesn't like them.
Isn't "freedom" about more than just listening to the Arbiters of All That Is True And Good (According To Themselves) decree what is and is not "free"2? I mean, where do they get off trying to pull An Ubuntu derivative that doesn't include Mono already exists for people who choose not to use it--it's called gNewSense.
All five of you who are actually using gNewSense are probably happy with your glorious "free" operating systems, unsullied by the eeeeeeeeeeevil Micro$oft3 taint of Mono. You know what's interesting, though? I think it's absolutely awesome that you can choose not to use Mono. I mean that, honestly. It's great. You have the choice not to use it. It's your decision. I might think your reasoning is silly (and believe me, I do), but you are one hundred percent welcome to make it. Because in the world of open source, you call the shots and you decide what is best for you. But you don't get to call the shots when you're a distinct minority just 'cause you're really loud.
When reading Miguel's blog post, I was struck particularly hard by this, and I realized that it's one of the reasons I love reading his blog when it comes up on Monologue, even when I'm not paying much attention to the open source world at a given time: because he isn't pushing an agenda. If something's cool and it comes to his attention, he'll talk about it. He talks mostly about Mono-related stuff because that's what he works on and that's what a lot of his associates work on--it's only natural that it'll be a big focus. But he's blogged about all sorts of interesting stuff before. He clearly doesn't apply some stupid purity test to what he likes. He likes what he likes because it's cool and because it's interesting and because it's good, or has the potential to be good in the future. Miguel doesn't go around telling people who read his blog not to use some piece of software or other. He just talks about what he thinks is interesting and what he thinks is cool, and doesn't presume to tell you what's best for you4.
And that is, at its core, what I see in a lot of the people who identify more with "open source" than "free software". Some (like me) are only peripherally related to open source directly; aside from a few translations here and there and some bug reports my only substantial contributions have been through Google's Summer of Code, mostly 'cause I'm a poor college student who has bills to pay. Most of my work is either closed-source or private work with open-source tools. But the idea seems very similar, if not always expressed: play if you want to. Use open source if it's better for your needs. Use closed source if it's better for your needs. Because the ball's in your court.
Isn't "you can" better than "you can't"? I think it is. Open source is inclusive. Even the "free software" people are welcome. If they want to be a little insular knot and use only what they deem halal, they can do so. But what they can't do is declare what they don't like haraam for the rest of us.
Want to restrict yourselves? Huddle in your little crate. We'll party out here.
1 Wherever possible I refuse to cede the word "free" to the Free Software Foundation to redefine as they please.
2 Yes, I know that the FSF has specific criteria for what they call "free". I am physically and mentally incapable of caring any less than I do. They're welcome to whatever cockeyed little worldviews they want to adopt. They're also welcome to keep their silly little ideological purity tests in their own sandbox and stop mudding up everyone else's.
3 Honest question: Why is this infantile "M$" garbage still tolerated in the open source and free software communities?
4 When it comes to what to use as far as software's concerned. "var" is still wrong, Miguel, and I don't care what you say!
Ed Ropple is a student at the University of Maine.
