Restricted freedom

27 March 2008 - 10:51

I recently had an exchange of emails with the developer of a Linux program, in which I happened to mention that I was using a Xandros Linux distribution. Instead of a solution, I received several paragraphs including quotes from Wikipedia informing me that because Xandros had signed a patent deal with Microsoft, it would not be allowed to distribute software released under the GPL v3, and that "this would be a real show stopper for anyone trying to use the eeePC and Xandros for serious Linux applications."

Although I like the Linux OS, I have little time for zealotry of any sort, and I have long felt that the GNU GPL is, in its way, just as restrictive as many of the license agreements used by non-free software developers. A few years ago I had a disagreement with someone who could not see the lack of logic in the fact that it was OK call a GPL program from a non-GPL program using a command shell, but not OK to call a DLL created from GPL software. To call a DLL I had to use header definitions in my program and was therefore including GPL code, even though the headers generate no actual instructions or data in the resulting binary. It was like arguing with a brick wall.

Software patents often appear to operate to the disadvantage of computer users. However, I - like many other people - earn my living in the software industry. Where there is widespread software piracy, it is necessary to protect one's intellectual property in order to safeguard your livelihood. Many people feel that the free, open source model is not an adequate way of doing this. Most of the software featured on tech-pro.net are products of small independent software vendors (ISVs) many of whom find it necessary to heavily protect their programs against piracy. The idea that they could release the source code and rely on legal wording to protect their intellectual property (and their sales income) is just laughable.

GNU advocates seem more than willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Many Linux distributions will not include as standard any proprietary code, so for example media players cannot play most types of video out of the box and much hardware is unrecognized because it requires proprietary drivers. Creating a usable system for ordinary people takes second place to adherence to a set of ideals.

The free software people should take their heads out of their backsides and smell the coffee. Software exists primarily for people to use, and for others to earn a living out of writing it. A world in which software is free of parents and restrictive licensing is a Utopian ideal, like free food and free housing. Most ISVs could not survive by releasing their source code and charging for "support". Keeping source code closed and protecting your rights is a practical necessity.

Engaging in a war of words against the "evil empire" Microsoft and other software companies is a pointless activity that will serve only to convince people that free software advocates don't live in the real world and that Linux isn't suitable for real world use by association.