*NIXEDBLOG 3.0

Thomas Holbrook II | *NIXEDBLOG 3.0

It’s happened to all of us.  Whether it’s a job opportunity, business opportunity, or a positive opportunity in general, people have turned down what would have appeared to be a good thing at the time because one of their ideals would have been violated.  One may have decided not to work for a certain bank due to the boss pushing sub-prime mortgages.  Others may have given up a retail job they enjoy because of the company’s unethical practices.  I’ve also seen other people not want to touch an operating system due to proprietary components being bundled with it.

While having ideals and morals is a noble thing, we can often go too far at times.  For example, Danijel Orsolic illustrates the point when he quotes Richard Stallman as saying that he’d rather proprietary software be illegal.  That’s like saying that Iraqis can be freed at the barrel’s end of a gun.  That makes no sense whatsoever.  If non-proprietary ways are to suceed, then shouldn’t it outcompete commercial software that’s proprietary in nature?  Allow me to ellaborate on the subject of software.

At the beginning of my college career, I was talking with a friend of mine.  He told me about how a friend of his online had developed a graphical interface that consisted of cubes.  It was 3D in nature, and sounded really cool.  I asked him why this product’s source code wasn’t being released.  They explained it to me in simple terms; it was their baby.  Just like a work of art is a part of an artist, a software project can easily be a part of the person developing it.  To illustrate the point in different words, how would Leonardo feel if somebody were to take his Mona Lisa and add some color to it, change the background, and change that smile to a frown?  He probably wouldn’t appreciate his baby being screwed with by some obnoxious fool.

Sometimes moderation is necessary.  Terry Hancock of Free Software Magazine illustrates this point, though in a way that he probably didn’t intend.  While I understand how lemming like media outlets can appear to be when it comes to the XO booting Microsoft Windows, I do think that he was incorrect in fingering Boycott Novell as a responsible party in all of this.  No matter how simple a project is and how innocent it is in the beginning, outside influence will eventually push in, and that’s what happened concerning the One Laptop Per Child project when it came to Microsoft.  Hancock had his own ideas about decent human behavior, but notice how he never once questioned Stallman’s tone when it came to comparing Windows to an addictive drug.  The icon of Free Software himself could be lambasting some poor lady over the fact that her t-shirt said open source on it instead of politely answering her question at a conference, but would Hancock have noticed?

The point is this; sometimes, ideals can blind one to things that should be obvious at times.  There are those who prefer 100% “Free Software,” but that doesn’t mean you should treat those who use proprietary software or who make proprietary software/components as less than human.  As the old adage goes, it’s best to treat others the way you want to be treated.  If I work a job at a retail outlet and am about to be told to push the company’s own consumer credit card, does that mean I ditch that company?  Not necessarily.  Bills have to be paid, and I need to eat.  Most companies have more than one department, and not all departments are pushing credit lines.  If moving departments were not an option, then I could search for another job, or increase my class load for next semester.

Options are always good to have.  Some options may appear to be better, but if it gets to the point where those “free as in speech” options are being crammed down everyones’ throats, then it really isn’t “free” now is it?  We all have choices.  Those who do advanced video editing are likely to stick with proprietary commercial software, because it fits their needs a lot better than the other alternatives.  The alternatives are catching up quickly, but there’s still a ways to go.  Being rich with features is not always going to entice people to switch to a different operating system.

They want their files to be accessible.  They don’t care if they have GPL’ed software.  They want their system to work, and being preached at is not a good way of convincing people to switch to an alternative.  So if somebody wants to take a Linux-based operating system and re-spin it for commercial purposes, then more power to them.  As long as they follow the licenses for the software components, any commercial entity will be just fine.  There’s also this phobia that alternative software that’s meant to be shared can not make anyone monetary profit or that people can’t sell the stuff for profit.  Nothing can be futher from the truth, especially when reading in the GPL about how software copies can be sold as long as the corresponding source code is with it or offered for a reasonable fee, depending on the situation.

In the end, we all have our morals and ideals.  Sometimes we don’t want to push credit onto people while a credit crunch is happening.  At other times, we don’t want to blindly follow a politician based on their appearance alone.  I think that sometimes we let our best virtues become our worst vices.  So how can we do better?

• If there is something conflicting with your morals, communicate that fact with the appropriate person/people.
• Do some research, but get viewpoints that are the opposite of yours.
• If certain open licenses are being violated, inform the person who is possibly violating them (they may not have intended to do so), and if that fails, inform the maker of that license of said possible violation.

Remember to treat people the way you want to be treated.  Before jumping to switch conclusions and pig piling somebody, do some legwork first and find out more about the person before judging them.  Again, don’t allow a virtue to turn into a vice.