There's only two points I disagree with RMS on. First, that ALL software must be free. The true freedom IMO is to allow any form of software and let the fittest survive.
And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we are today in terms of progress.
Of course, it isn't worth supporting for us, today, but at the times it thrived slavery turned to be the most viable form of labor, for that society.
Perhaps in future our society will evolve enough to make all software (and not only software) free. In particular, we should find a way to overcome tragedy of the commons.
> You can say the same thing about slavery, but that
> doesn't make it good, or worth supporting.
How, exactly, do you see slavery as having helped us progress as a society? Slavery held us back. Both literally and figuratively (we held ourselves back).
> But from an economic standpoint? It was a very
> effective way to accomplish a lot. As disgusting as it was.
As far as I can see, the only economic contribution was free labor. The presence of free labor makes the wealthy live very well while they are able to suppress resistance, but saying it somehow made us advance as a society - both in moral and physical terms - is the opposite of the truth, as far as I can see.
In ancient cultures they used slaves to build pyramids. I'm sure the ruling class told themselves that this was a symbol of how advanced they were - that they could build these huge things. I just see a colossal waste of time, with the only purpose being the ruling class having something to feel important about. Stacking rocks on top of each other is no more advantageous to a society than cheap cotton, at least not when the cheap cotton can't be purchased by those who need it the most: the people who produced it.
> And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we are today in terms of progress.
Did this progress happen because or despite it is/was non-free? Would there be less progress with free software? I don't buy that without a really compelling argument why everything being free software would actually hinder progress to a strongly noticeable degree. Software not practically being free is also a relatively new concept, a lot of progress did happen before nevertheless.
If those are the only two points you disagree with, what are the points you agree with?
The intent of software freedom is to ensure the 4 freedoms for the users. If you waive those user freedoms because a piece of software is popular, how does that make it "free" from the perspective of the user?
It is very true that we can give more freedom to impose restrictions on users of software, but that's just blatantly missing the point. I can completely understand that it is what you and many other people want, but calling it "true freedom" in the same breath where you espouse to agree with most of RMS's principles is disingenuous.
I don't mean to be as harsh as I'm sure this sounds. Many people learn about free software through open source. They see the benefits of open source processes. They enjoy the benefits that free software brings them through these open source projects. However, I suspect that many (possibly including yourself) don't really understand what software freedom is or why it is important. This is why (I imagine) that RMS refuses to align with the Open Source movement, even though they are fighting the same battles 90% of the time. He hopes to help people understand why software freedom is important and that is his only goal.
To be fair, I think there is a gradient of suckiness to software that is not free. I am playing Dwarf Fortress a lot lately, which is unusual for me because I have barely any non-free software on my machine. However I can identify with the authors of DF who clearly see their code as a work of public art. It sucks that I can't participate fully in that work, but it only sucks a little bit if I'm honest. I am free to write my own interpretation of that art any time I feel like it.
We can contrast that to embedded software that is in medical devices. Although it is an issue that has been going on for some time, it has gotten some press lately. Imagine a pace maker which has remote access and whose software is closed. People's lives are at stake and they can't even review the software, let alone fix security bugs. Clearly this sucks very much beyond what we normally mean by "sucks". (An exploit exists that allows remote people to kill you. Ouch).
Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it. But where do we draw the line?
There is a really sharp gradient with our suckiness level. Even when entities that control non-free software are good actors, they can easily sell the software to people who are not. Politics and policies can change. Would you really like to be a political dissident in Saudi Arabia with a Blackberry phone? Do you really trust so much that things like that can't happen where you live? Even with Pokemon Go? (tracking you everywhere you go...)
I'm not a free software activist (not even in my spare time), though I very much believe in what people like RMS are doing. I've written my fair share of non-free software (and even signed contracts which forbade me from writing free software for many years!) Even these days, while I refuse to write proprietary software, I simply hand over my copyright to my employers and I have no way to stop them from putting whatever license they want on the software. One day I hope it won't be such a big issue because most people will understand software freedom and the advantages it brings to society. We've already come such a long way (with very little help from me, unfortunately).
I hope that helps to shine light on a different way of looking at the issue.
> Personally, I am not really of the opinion that all software must inherently be free, but there is a significant problem. It seems pretty clear to me that some software must be free and I think we should have laws in place to ensure it. But where do we draw the line?
If we make everything free we can stop (re)drawing the lines all day. I agree that not absolutely everything must be free under all circumstances but if you think it trough there are not many reasons to suddenly stop somewhere.
> We've already come such a long way
I would say both yes and no. On one hand we have a lot of free software now, often really good and widely used, great. On the other hand computing devices get more and more locked down these days where you sometimes wish back something like Windows in the late 90s/early 2000s where you practically had more control over what the device did than whats often possible today.
I tend to agree that we might as well make everything free. It's easier and has less downsides for society. The one place I can really see an argument for non-free software is art. However, it is possible that trademarks and author moral rights are enough to deal with that issue. So the software would be free, but you can limit who participates in the "official" version. It might suck for someone to rebrand/fork your work and claim it as their own, making no reference to the original. I believe the GPL and moral rights in most countries allow that scenario.
I agree that free software is better for users than non-free. And potentially better for the whole society.
As for "freedom to impose restrictions on users", I see it just the same way I see property rights. You can do whatever you want: share, sell, gift, lease (under any conditions), ignore any use altogether, etc. And users are free to choose. Maybe I'm missing some point. I've seen very few of RMS talks and never met him in person.
That said, I can basically agree with everything else you wrote. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
And second, ignoring the fact that non-free software (mostly) got us where we are today in terms of progress.