Free Software
What About Open Source?
    What is Open Source?
    Why Do I Disagree with Open Source
The Ills of Proprietary Software
    1.    Users Cannot Modify the Program to Fix Problems
    2.    Users Cannot Copy Software
    3.    Proprietary Software Makes Users Criminals
    4.    Proprietary Software Prevents the Adoption of True Standards
    5.    Proprietary Software Harms Democracy

    Ever since I have created this website, some people have asked me why do I recommend some programs and not others.  For instance, to view Portable Document Format (PDF) files, why do I recommend only certain programs that are less known such as SumatraPDF, Evince, or Skim, and not Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is a software practically everyone knows, and is available for all platforms (Windows, MacOS, GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, and so on)?  Why do I recommend WinDjView, and not LizardTech's DjVu Plugin for Internet Explorer?  The problem with Adobe Acrobat Reader and LizardTech's DjVu Plugin is that they are proprietary software, I only recommend free software.

    When I talk about free software, I am not referring to software that is available at no cost for a user.  "Free software", in the sense I am using this term, refers to software that grants certain freedoms to users: 

• Freedom 0:  The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
  
• Freedom 1:  The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• Freedom 2:  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
  
• Freedom 3:  The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

That is the definition of free software as it was formulated by Richard M. Stallman, and has been assumed by the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation.  Any software license that does not grant you these four freedoms is "proprietary software".  In this context, as Richard M. Stallman says, do not read the word "free" as in "free beer", read it as in "free speech".  No one in the free software movement says that you cannot sell free software or make business out of it.  The only thing we ask is that any software released to the public must have these four essential freedoms.  Some of these programs are released under the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), which is the most widely known free software license, but there are others released under an MIT License, BSD License or BSD-like Licenses, the GNU Lesser General Public License (GNU LGPL), the Mozilla Public License (MPL), among other free software licenses.

    If I recommend software in this website, be sure that what I recommend is free software.  I will never recommend proprietary software.  As an associate member of the Free Software Foundation, and as a person who firmly believes that all software should be free, I cannot recommend anyone installing proprietary software in people's computers.  However, I do use very well known genuine standards to distribute my documents.  The first one is, obviously, HTML; most of the information in this website will be in HTML.  The second one is PDF.  This is one of the best standards to distribute documents, because it presents the documents as they are supposed to appear, it is secure against possible worms and viruses, its specifications are public, and it can be viewed in all operative systems and platforms.  I create them using OpenOffice.org, which has an excellent PDF Export feature.  Some people who have MS Windows use PDFCreator, which is also free software.   DjVu (pronounced "déjà vu") is less known, but it is an excellent format:  it is more compact than PDF, it presents high quality images, and it is ideal to present physical documentation in digital form.  I hope more people use this format, because it is simply amazing.  I create DjVu documents exporting the originals to PDF, and then using Any2DjVu, an excellent online server to convert PostScript, PDF and other formats to DjVu.

    I also release most of my works in Open Document Format (ODF), a true open standard that can be implemented by any office application:  its specifications are patent-free, it has no restrictions, and can be used by everyone freely.  This is an advantage over OpenXML format promoted by Microsoft, which has patented features and unknown aspects of its specifications that cannot be implemented by free office suites such as OpenOffice.org, Abiword or KOffice.  Therefore, OpenXML (OOXML) does not really qualify as a standard, and there are organizations promoting the use of ODF as a standard.

    Another reason why I release my works in ODF is because there are already free office suites that use them, especially OpenOffice.org and KOffice use it as their native format, and people can transform them into any other format:  PostScript, PDF, Plain Text, Rich Text Format (RTF), and others.  Even other proprietary office suites such as Corel Suite, Google Docs, SoftMaker Office, TextMaker, among others, do import ODF documents.   Anyone can download these ODF files and modify them so that they can read it in any platform, hardware, or program.  I will not use Digital Restrictions Managements (DRM) for the purpose of restricting copying and modifications in this fashion.  In the case of essays and books that express my opinions, the only modifications I do not allow are modifications of textual content.  But I will allow any kind of modification to make my readers read any of my books anywhere they want.

    For the moment, I offer no audio files, but if, by any chance, I have the opportunity to offer an audio or video files, be sure that I will only use OggVorbis for audio, and OggTheora for video.  Recently browsers such as Mozilla's Firefox and Google's Chrome (or its free version Chromium) decided to support natively Ogg files.  These are formats that can be implemented in any software and do not use any patented software ideas.  I will not use formats such as MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV, MOV, or any other proprietary format which use patented features.  I usually recommend VLC to listen to OggVorbis, or watch OggTheora videos.  I also cooperate with the "Play Ogg" Campaign.



From what you are able to see here, you will notice that most of the time (not always) whichever license falls under the open source definition will fall under the free software definition.  But when we focus on the content of both definitions we notice a big difference:  the free software definition focuses on freedoms users must have, in the open source definition deals with the technological advances of open source programs.

    That is basically the difference between the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement.  The Open Source Movement is not committed to users' freedoms, instead it uses open source software (and free software) as a technological advantage for users and programmers.  This technological theory was developed by Eric S. Raymond in his famous paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", one of the great gems of the Open Source Movement.  This paper explains why does open source (the bazaar model for software) works much better than traditional software development (the cathedral model).  Usually all begins with the interest of a programmer to develop a program he or she needs.  The source code of the program is released, and other people from all parts of the world can add to it, fix bugs, adapt it to their needs, and so on.  This mere fact is a big contribution to the software itself, the users generally contribute the code to the original programmer so they can fix the bugs or add features.  Also, the advantage of this model is that everyone can see the code, which means that more eyes can look for bugs and holes in the program and create the appropriate fixes.  The frequent release of the code guarantees feedback, which would, in the end,  make a high quality program.  In the conventional (cathedral) model, only those who sign "non-disclosure agreements" can see the code, and the number of programmers are extremely few, and the eyes that discover the bugs and holes are extremely few. Needless to say that the number of programmers to fix these bugs and holes are fewer still.

    Richard M. Stallman has also talked about these technological advantages, in his speech "The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operative System" given at LinuxTag 2000. He told about the way he developed one of the fundamental components of the GNU Operative System, GNU Emacs, which is a powerful text editor.  When he developed GNU Emacs, he made it free software, and sold it (along with its source code) to other people.  Later he began receiving letters and e-mails suggesting adding new features and bug fixing.  Sometimes he received so much suggestions that he could not keep up with all of them.  Stallman said with justified pride:  "Microsoft does not have this problem."

    The Open Source Movement has its own favorite example, the kernel called Linux.  Linus Torvalds began writing it in 1991 as a hobby, and invited other people to contribute to the code.  Year after year, Linux's code increased, with significant bug fixes and adding new features.  Today Linux, is perhaps, one of the most, if not the most respected free and open source kernel available.


    For this and other reasons I do not agree the Open Source Movement.  However, I do not condemn it wholeheartedly.  Thanks to it more companies are adopting free software as a way to do business, but at the expense of not associating people's use of software with their freedoms.  Stallman says that he supports the claim made by open source, that free software provides technological advantages, but freedom comes first.  In my way of viewing things, the fact that a software is free is precisely the reason why it provides technological advances along the lines argued by Eric Raymond.  I do agree with Stallman that freedom always comes first, and it must be a basis for an open society and true democracy.

The Ills of Proprietary Software

    I do agree with Richard Stallman that installing proprietary software in a computer takes away its users' freedom.  Here are several ways proprietary software harms the users:

1.    Users Cannot Modify the Program to Fix Problems

    This may not sound like much, but as a computer technician I have seen the problems this creates.  To fix a proprietary software whose source code you cannot access to fix is, according to a well-known analogy, like trying to fix a car's engine with the hood sealed.  Imagine you have a car, you want to fix the engine, but you have accepted a license to use that car as long as you do not open the hood to fix anything.  This means, first, that your car is not really yours; second, that if you want any help, you have to call the company that sold you the car.  You cannot go to the mechanic of your preference, not even to your friend who knows more about mechanics than you do.  Of course, if the engine of your car breaks down, and the problem is pretty simple to solve, you cannot use a "pirated key" to open the lock.  Remember, according to the license, you cannot open the hood.  If you do, then you are a criminal, subject to pay fines or, even, go to jail.  So, what do you do?   You want to call the company, and then they give you instructions to press the pedal, move the steering wheel, check the tires, but it never gives you anything to actually unlock the hood to fix the problem directly.

    That's what proprietary software is.  When you buy MS Windows or Corel WordPerfect, you are not buying a program, you are buying a license to use the program.  Of course, most of us never read this license:  It is too long, too technical, and filled with legalese language that makes your brain smoke trying to understand it.  For this and many other reasons, I do agree with John C. Dvorak when he states that proprietary software licenses are essentially scams.  In most of the cases, the software vendor never gives you the source code to let you fix the problem.  In case you don't know how to fix it, you cannot go to any other programmer who offer his or her own services for a fee or for free because, according to the license, you are not allowed to see the source code, or to modify the program itself.  You have to install other proprietary programs to fix these problems, perhaps with other licenses with strings attached, and even in some cases, this new license forbids and prevents you from installing the programs you want.  In the best of cases, like Microsoft's Share Code program, you have to agree to a non-disclosure agreement, which, again, prevents you from sharing the code, to fix it for your own benefit, or to help others.

2.    Users Cannot Copy the Software

    One of the virtues of software is that it is information and technology that it can be produced and reproduced continually, and can be shared with everyone.  In fact, software began this way.  Programmers used to pass around software without paying any attention to the authors or restricted by Copyright.  The authors did not mind that others copied the software and made derivative works out of it.  When you received a program, it was understood that you could do anything you wanted with it.  It was not until many years later, in the late 70s, that companies began forcing programmers to sign non-disclosure agreements, and to stop sharing their knowledge about the software.  Most software companies today build their business models precisely on this basis.

    Today, most users' experience is that software should be bought, and must be paid.  It should not be shared because this is piracy, even if it is to help your neighbor.  Why?  Because the authors who created this software "need to make a living".  Devices are built to make software more secure from copying or piracy.  It is Copyrighted, it is "Intellectual Property", therefore, it should be respected at all costs.

    Why is this bad for society?  This kind of harm is the result of ignoring the nature of software itself.  I agree with Bruce Schneier's analogy:  "Making bits harder to copy is like making water that's less wet."  Unlike computers, apples, oranges, and TV, software itself is not physical.  It is essentially mathematical algorithms that make the hardware run the way it should run.  Copyright applies to it because every software is "written", has an author, and counts legally as an expression.  However, software is also a technology.  Unlike other technologies, such as cables, TV plasmas, and iPods, software can be reproduced easily.  Oranges need time to develop, iPods require collective modes of production to produce, none of the pieces can be reproduced the way software is copied.  Unless we build Star Trek replicators, none of these physical objects can really be copied.

    To prevent "illegal" software copying, they use certain coercive tactics to prevent people from copying.  These coercions harm society as a whole.  Stallman talked about them in a speech given at MIT titled "Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks" (transcript, audio):

This leads us to another problem.

3.    Proprietary Software Makes Users Criminals

    When it comes to copyrighted content, there is a legal concept called "fair use".  This means that under certain circumstances it is legitimate to copy a part of a book, use a part of a song, or present a video non-commercially or for educational purposes.  Unfortunately this doctrine has been undermined precisely by software companies.  If you make a copy to help out a friend who needs MS Word to do a report, and illegally install that MS Word in his or her computer, then you are both criminals.  What happens when a friend lost the original CDs of a computer, and needs MS Windows to run a program, if you install a forbidden version of MS Windows in his or her computer, then you are a criminal.  This is not positive for society.  When companies like Microsoft monopolize the market, and raise prices of their licenses, then, for poor countries to survive technologically, they have to subsist by making illegal copies of the software.  Sometimes companies penalize people copying software by fining them to the point of ruining their lives, or sending them to jail.

    This harms society in another way, it prevents people from sharing software with their neighbors, helping them, and even educating them.  In other words, companies want to engage us in anti-ethical behavior:  first, we pay a license, we are forbidden to share it, and we are forbidden to even help our neighbor in need, because the license we buy to let us use a software that is not ours.   Free software gives you all the freedoms you need to help your neighbor.

4.    Proprietary Software Prevents the Adoption of True Standards

    Today, MS Office is an example of how proprietary software prevents the adoption of true standards.  With Office 2007,  now people used to using Office 97, Office 2000, Office 2003 have to adapt to another proprietary format, OOXML (OpenXML), which is harmful.  The DOC format has been so widespread, that Microsoft uses it as an advantage to make people buy more of its products.  With each office version, the new DOCX format is in many ways incompatible with the old one, so, it forces people to buy the new Microsoft office suite.  Today, we have a format which is completely incompatible with previous versions of MS Office.  Worse still, this new OpenXML format connot be implemented in all proprietary office suite, and cannot be implemented at all in free office suites.  Part of the problem is that OpenXML specifications include patented features, and there are other parts of its specifications that are not available to the public.

    This is not new.  In the world of video, for instance, depending on what you want to watch, you have to download and adopt other proprietary software, such as Quicktime if you want to watch MOV, or Windows Media Player if you want to watch WMV or listen to WMA, and often those licenses have strings attached.  Even when they don't cost anything to download, they can spy on the user, or can transmit to third parties information about your computer.  They can go as far as restricting the users right to watch certain videos.

    The adoption of formats such as MOV or WMV implies the adoption of one of two kinds of programs:

1.    The respective video programs such as Quicktime or Windows Media Player or other proprietary players, whose source code is not available to the public, and which contain malicious features.

2.    Downloading illegally a software that can play these formats.  Even if it is free software, such as Xine or MPlayer, in many places of the world, including the United States, illegal use of the codecs implies that the users who use these programs will become criminals, and potentially liable to be sued or prosecuted.

To add more to the problem, these proprietary players do not support OggTheora.  Even RealPlayer used to support OggTheora and OggVorbis, but later dropped its support.  However, the specifications of both formats can be implemented in any player if the vendors want to.  Today, apparently, only free players (VLC, Xine, Mplayer) do play OggTheora.

    The same happened to Graphic Interchange Format (GIF).  To create this format, it required the use of the LZW Compression Algorithm, whose patent was owned by Unisys.  The patent owners waited until GIF became a standard for images in the web, to then start suing companies for its use.  The free software movement, using a GNU compression called GNU Zip (or gzip), created Portable Network Graphics (PNG) as an alternative.  It advised individuals and companies to switch over to PNGs and talked to browser vendors to support it.  Unfortunately the response from GIF commercial users was that GIF was so widely used that they could not switch, in fact, few browsers supported it.  On the other hand, browser vendors said that there was no demand for it, despite the fact that for many years it was a W3C Standard.  Result?  Still, after all these years the people who sold GIF prevented the switch to PNG.  An alternative to animated GIFs, called Multiple-image Network Graphics (MNG) is still unsupported, even when it can be freely implemented by any browser.

    This may seem far-fetched, but it is true.  The use of computer technology in elections have worsened the elections in the United States and other parts of the world.  The main reason of this new undemocratic headache is because the software that runs the computers is proprietary software, the source code is not available, not even for the members of U.S. Congress.  President Bush's elections in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004, and the situation has worsened after 2002 when states began buying touchscreen voting machines.  Machines no one really knows what they do, because the source code of the software is not available.

    This has been a source of electoral scandals, for example, in the cases of the State of Georgia and the State of Nebraska.  In Nebraska's case, one of the Congressmen, Chuck Hagel, who won an election in 1996, was former chairman of one of the companies that designed the software to count votes.  Many people are actually asking to free the code of these programs as free software or open source, and wish to standardize the elections throughout the United States.  This way, we can avoid electoral frauds.  To know how serious is the issue of computer electoral frauds, watch the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy (which should be called "Cracking Democracy").