My employer has recently entrusted me with an Apple iBook that I wish
use for various student projects. I am typing this in Firefox (http://www.spreadfirefox.com), on
the iBook, right now.
I’m going to spare you my review of the iBook, because there have been
enough of those. Frankly, it works pretty well for most purposes.
Nevertheless, it has made me think about software freedom a little more
closely. What was Apple’s true goal in using BSD (http://www.bsd.org/) as their
base? What is their goal in sitting with the Free Software
Foundation and making sure that their Apple Public License was in line
with the FSF’s definition of free software? My thinking is that
Apple still doesn’t get it. They are still driven by greed and
probably took those actions with the hope of attracting open source
unix enthusiasts.Â
They did not release the source code for their developer toolkits (at
least not to anyone who did not sign a non-disclosure agreement), and
they certainly did not release the source code for their desktop
system, which could have benefitted the free software world
tremendously. Essentially, they did not release any of the
software that could have significantly benefitted the free software
community.
Instead, they’ve simply setup a BSD (http://www.bsd.org/)-branch called Darwin that is
open source. Â In doing so, they have a community of volunteer
developers, who make their software better without paying them a
cent. What are they really giving back to the community?
The real problem is that many people do not understand the difference
between free software and open source. Â Something can be open
source and not be free. Even Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) has jumped on the open
source bandwagon, initiating their shared source programs.Â
They like the idea of having a community of developers who can help
make their software better, without having to pay them. But that
is not the point of free software. Â At the end of the day, you
still have activate your copy of Windows and only install it on one
computer. You cannot share the source code they’ve given you with
someone in say, Iran or China, for example. You’ll be sued and
possibly thrown in jail. That’s not freedom.
Free software means that I can take the source code, recompile it, put
my own logo on it, sell it to whomever I please, and give it away to
anyone or everyone. Free software means that the only limitation
on your freedom is that you cannot transform free software into
non-free software. It’s not about money. Many companies,
such as Redhat (http://www.redhat.com), have been very successful at selling free software.
As desktop KDE (http://www.kde.org) Appeal Desktop Project)
we will see more users turning to it. There are already more
Linux (http://www.linux.org) desktop users than Mac desktop users. When it starts to
compete with Windows, we will see more and more companies realizing
that they cannot compete unless they open the doors on their secret
labs. Â If it does not happen, they will simply cease to exist,
which is fine by me.
