cflynn07/myblog

<img src="/static/images/2020-11-09/free_as_in_freedom.jpeg" style="width:50%;">
<figcaption>Free as in Freedom. Bogota, Colombia. November 2020</figcaption>

### Free as in Freedom 

I just finished reading "Free as in Freedom" by Sam Williams. In 2020 I've read
quite a few technical books. FAIF was a sort-of deviation from this trend in
that it's a biography, not a technical book.

FAIF is a biography of Richard Stallman, activist and founder of the GNU
project and the Free Software Foundation. The book chronicles Stallman's
childhood, his formative years in high school through undergrad and graduate
school at Harvard University and MIT, as well as the origins of his political
beliefs of freedom to modify, share and use software as one sees fit.

The book is written in such a way that it will appeal to programmers and
non-programmers alike. Having worked as a software engineer for years, I was
fairly familiar with the gist of the GNU, the GPL, the FSF, GNU/Linux's
origins, and Stallman's relationship with Linus Torvalds but FAIF filled in the
details.

Stallman's philosophical argument for why software should be "free" (free as in
freedom, not beer) are compelling. Rather than try to re-articulate Stallman's
position myself, here's an excerpt from Stallman himself.

<blockquote class="blockquote" style="margin-left: 2rem; margin-right: 2rem;" cite="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html">
The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how decisions about
its use should be made. For example, suppose one individual who has a copy of a
program meets another who would like a copy. It is possible for them to copy
the program; who should decide whether this is done? The individuals involved?
Or another party, called the “owner”? 
<br />
<br />
Software developers typically consider these questions on the assumption that
the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers' profits. The political
power of business has led to the government adoption of both this criterion and
the answer proposed by the developers: that the program has an owner, typically
a corporation associated with its development.
<br />
<br />
I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the
prosperity and freedom of the public in general.
</blockquote>

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

Stallman contends that non-free software inhibits the overall prosperity of
humanity. Software is extremely important to societal well being and closed-off
software prevents SWEs from "standing on the shoulders of giants" or building
upon the work of others. 

All of us software engineers stand on the shoulders of giants every day and
because those giants happen to be very tall, we have the ability to do
incredibly powerful things. I think RMS helped usher in a world where this is
possible.