Richard Stallman thinks that free software is a good thing. But when it comes to free Web-based software, it's a different story. He thinks it's a trap, and "worse than stupidity".
It helps to know that Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), an organization that promotes free software. He defines free software as "software that gives you the user the freedom to share, study and modify it. We call this free software because the user is free". Free software of this type underpins the web, in tools such as the Apache web server, which as of June 2008 served 49.12% of all websites.
Web-based software is an element of cloud computing, which includes software as a service, Web 2.0 applications, and what used to be referred to as (application service provider) ASP software. Salesforce.com is a well-known example in enterprise computing. Technology economies of scale have driven down the cost of these technologies to the point that larger Web companies can offer them to others at almost negligible prices. This has allowed small companies to innovate quickly without the worry of dealing with infrastructure concerns, and driven down the cost or implementing software solutions for others.
Web-based software may be "free" or nearly free to the user in terms of cost, but it is certainly not free by the FSF definition. The user is not free, but has essentially agreed to give up his or her data, and perhaps even the control of it, to someone else.
This has definitely opened the door to both privacy and data ownership issues. Facebook has been a lightning rod for these concerns. At the same time, other Web 2.0 applications provide APIs to allow users to access their data. Web-based email software offers standards-based access via protocols such as POP3 or IMAP.
Actually, we have already grown quite comfortable with sharing our data across local area networks. Cloud computing is simply an extension of the same idea. There are inherent risks that we will lose control of our data, but no company would last long providing such services if they adopted that way of operating. Word of mouth on the Internet alone would scare potential users away from such an environment.
And even though Mr. Stallman is concerned about it, we actually use proprietary programs every day. Few people use open operating systems; we depend instead on Windows and Mac OS X. Or we purchase proprietary versions of free software such as Red Hat Linux, because we feel more comfortable having available customer support.
Web-based tools, proprietary or open, are merely an extension of that mentality. And so far, they have proved to be excellent in terms of available features and low cost. Currently there seems to be no obvious deviation from that path. I'm comfortable keeping my sales information in Salesforce.com, my documents at Google Docs, my photos at Flickr, my blogs at Wordpress, and my thoughts at Twitter. I have the added benefit of sharing with the world, something that would never happen if I kept everything on my local desktop. And that sharing makes my content all the more valuable.
Mr. Stallman's concerns seem well intentioned, but currently without basis. Web software companies seem to realize that the path to growth comes from pleasing customers, which they have achieved by providing a core set of necessary features at low or no cost, and by remaining open. So far that seems to have worked very well for both the providers and everyone else.
Larry Borsato has been a software developer, marketer, consultant, public speaker, and entrepreneur, among other things. For more of his unpredictable, yet often entertaining thoughts you can read his blog at larryborsato.com.
More news, commentary, and predictions from The Industry Standard:
Comments
"Web software companies seem to realize that the path to growth comes from pleasing customers, which they have achieved by providing a core set of necessary features at low or no cost, and by remaining open."
Hah!
And sppose the company hosting your cloud computing app goes down? That may sound unthinkable in the case of Microsoft and Google. But go back in time a year when Bear Stearns and AIG looked like the most rock solid companies anywhere. Does it still seem unthinkable?
Maybe you believe that nobody will ever bother to use the data they are stored about the users. That there is no reasons to panic. And i agree with those.
What you forget is that there are softwares like Skype that are sending your voice over the internet to some unknown user which can capture them. And in their license is stated that they are allow to do that.
That's another example of cloud computing.
You can't just relay on the fact that "had never been done before", I need more than that when i hand over my data to a third party.
Red Hat Linux is not proprietary, it is only commercial (and trademarked). It's fully free and open source software. Also, more and more people around the world are using various open source alternatives. Of course the masses in western world still use Windows (or Mac OS) mostly, but cloud computing might be even a bigger problem for users' rights and privacy than proprietary software.
We'll see what happens.
Jim, do you live in a bunker? Stock some canned foods away yet?
> Or we purchase proprietary versions of free software such as Red Hat Linux, because we feel more
> comfortable having available customer support.
This statement is a complete puzzle, it seems to show a really hard-to-believe core misunderstanding of what free software is about. The free in free software is not about paying nothing. It is about having software that is liberally licensed so you can do what you like with it, and in particular you can modify it to meet your needs, or copy it freely.
It's not unusual to find neophytes making this confused mistake (free vs free is a bit confusing in English, languages like French which separate .. libre vs gratuit .. avoid this mistake, and in france you talk about libre software, not gratuit software), but one normally expects an industry commentator to avoid this mistake.
To talk about proprietary versions of free software is self-contradictory nonsense if you are talking about GPL-licensed software (like GNU/Linux versions) -- the GPL is precisely designed to make it impossible to have proprietary versions of free software.
So indeed you may decide to pay money for a piece of free software, for all sorts of reasons (guaranteed quality assurance, licensing assurance, support, new versions etc), but that does not make it any less free!
Robert Dewar
AdaCore
(a company that makes its living selling and supporting Free Software).
Jim, you may be right about companies going under, especially now that it's happened to AIG. But while I may use cloud services, I still try to keep a copy of my data somewhere else where possible.
Robert, I am merely making the point that we pay for the Red Hat version, rather than download the very same software from a generic source. They are both libre, but we are unlikely to make changes to the Red Hat version unless Red Hat makes them; that way we can use Red Hat support. Proprietary may be a poor choice of word for that; perhaps there is a better one but I can't think of it.
"This has allowed small companies to innovate quickly without the worry of dealing with infrastructure concerns, and driven down the cost or implementing software solutions for others."
This statement has little to do with Stallman's specific complaints about cloud computing. But let me speak to it. I use a virtual host to run a production application. Yes, it has immensely sped the process and lowered the cost of setting up a dedicated linux server for my organization. BUT, I still backup all my code and my database nightly, to hardware that I control, because I happen to agree that nobody should put all of their IT capital in the hands of someone else.
"And even though Mr. Stallman is concerned about it, we actually use proprietary programs every day."
Also fails to draw a connection to the argument we're having.
"I have the added benefit of sharing with the world, something that would never happen if I kept everything on my local desktop."
The way I read Stallman's warnings he wasn't suggesting that we abstain completely from web 2.0, he was suggesting primarily that we keep a copy of our data and maintain control over how we interact with things like our email. And I agree, I've got all 6,000 of my gmail messages on my home pc, with backups via Apple's (OH NO! proprietary!) Time Machine.
There is a middle ground to find here, where we have a healthy amount of personal computing that is augmented by cloud applications, so long as we don't become irrevocably entangled with the latter.
"I have the added benefit of sharing with the world, something that would never happen if I kept everything on my local desktop."
Installing a web server and a mail server at home so I can "share with the world" is possible and do happen. So you are mistaken. For now. I say for now because Internet Service Providers tend to serve us an increasingly restricted access to the internet. The bandwidth is asymmetric, more and more protocols are slowed down or even blocked (think file sharing). The more they restrict our access, the more interesting "cloud computing" services become. Some of them even pay my provider to let me access their service.
Going that way, you will be right. Hosting a web site or a ftp server at home will be impossible. Nothing to be worried about, though, this is just the end of the Internet. We'll still have a network, mind you. The only notable differences will be the increased centralization, the lack of dissent and a chill of free software.
While wrong (for now), your sentence is dangerous. Currently, self hosting isn't self evident. Going to Gmail and Blogger is simpler. So this is easy to think that you are right, that cloud computing is the only way to do e-mail and blogging. Thinking that, people won't even try to host themselves. ISPs' will then be free to restrict our access, eventually locking down the Internet.
Cloud computing is indeed a trap. It's generalization can eventually be a disaster for our democracies. It will also be a giant step backward to the time of centralized networks, like the ones we knew before the internet (for instance, in France, we had the Minitel).
Post new comment