103 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
103 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
date: 2014-10-15T00:00:00-05:00
|
|
title: "Respectful Software"
|
|
tags: [free-software, en_us, english, privacy, security, fedora-planet, philosophy, thoughts]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
**To what extent should Free Software respect its users?**
|
|
|
|
The question, strange as it may sound, is not only valid but also
|
|
becoming more and more important these days. If you think that the [four
|
|
freedoms](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) are enough to
|
|
guarantee that the Free Software will respect the user, you are probably
|
|
being oversimplistic. The four freedoms **are** essential, but they are
|
|
not sufficient. You need more. I need more. And this is why I think the
|
|
Free Software movement should have been called the **Respectful
|
|
Software** movement.
|
|
|
|
I know I will probably hear that I am too radical. And I know I will
|
|
hear it even from those who defend Free Software the way I do. But I
|
|
need to express this feeling I have, even though I may be wrong about
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
It all began as an innocent comment. I make lots of presentations and
|
|
talks about Free Software, and, knowing that the word “Free” is
|
|
ambiguous in English, I started joking that Richard Stallman should have
|
|
named the movement “Respectful Software”, instead of “Free Software”. If
|
|
you think about it just a little, you will see that “respect” is a word
|
|
that brings different interpretations to different people, just as
|
|
“free” does. It is a subjective word. However, at least it does not have
|
|
the problem of referring to completely unrelated things such as “price”
|
|
and “freedom”. Respect is respect, and everybody knows it. What can
|
|
change (and often does) is *what* a person considers respectful or not.
|
|
|
|
(*I am obviously not considering the possible ambiguity that may exist
|
|
in another language with the word “respect”.*)
|
|
|
|
So, back to the software world. I want you to imagine a Free Software.
|
|
For example, let's consider one that is used to connect to so-called
|
|
“social networks” like [GNU Social](http://gnu.io/social/) or
|
|
[pump.io](http://pump.io/). I do not want to use a specific example
|
|
here; I am more interested in the consequences of a certain decision.
|
|
Which decision? Keep reading :-).
|
|
|
|
Now, let's imagine that this Free Software is just beginning its life,
|
|
probably in some code repository under the control of its developer(s),
|
|
but most likely using some proprietary service like GitHub (which is an
|
|
issue by itself). And probably the developer is thinking: “*Which social
|
|
network should my software support first?*”. This is an extremely valid
|
|
and important question, but sometimes the developer comes up with an
|
|
answer that may not be satisfactory to its users. This is where the
|
|
“respect” comes into play.
|
|
|
|
In our case, this bad answer would be “Facebook”, “Twitter”, “Linkedin”,
|
|
or any other unethical social network. However, those are exactly the
|
|
easiest answers for many and many Free Software developers, either
|
|
because those “vampiric” services are popular among users, or because
|
|
the developer him/herself uses them!!
|
|
By now, you should be able to see where I am getting at. My point, in a
|
|
simple question, is: “**How far should we, Free Software developers,
|
|
allow users to go and harm themselves *and* the community?**”. Yes, this
|
|
is not just a matter of self-inflicted restrictions, as when the user
|
|
chooses to use a non-free software to edit a text file, for example. It
|
|
is, in most cases, a matter of harming **the community** too. (I have
|
|
written a post related to this issue a while ago, called
|
|
“[Privacy as a Collective Good]({filename}/2014-05-15-privacy-collective-good.md)”.)
|
|
|
|
It should be easy to see that it does not matter if I am using Facebook
|
|
through my shiny Free Software application on my computer or cellphone.
|
|
What **really** matters is that, when doing so, you are basically
|
|
supporting the use of those unethical social networks, to the point that
|
|
perhaps some of your friends are also using them **because** of you.
|
|
What does it matter if they are using Free Software to access them or
|
|
not? Is the benefit offered by the Free Software big enough to eliminate
|
|
(or even soften) the problems that exist when the user uses an unethical
|
|
service like Linkedin?
|
|
|
|
I wonder, though, what is the limit that we should obey. Where should we
|
|
draw the line and say “I will not pass beyond this point”? Should we
|
|
just “abandon” the users of those unethical services and social
|
|
networks, while we lock ourselves in our not-very-safe world? After all,
|
|
we **need** to communicate with them in order to bring them to our
|
|
cause, but it is hard doing so without getting our hands dirty. But that
|
|
is a discussion to another post, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, I could give plenty of examples of existing Free Softwares
|
|
that are doing a disservice to the community by allowing (and even
|
|
**promoting**) unethical services or solutions for their users. They are
|
|
**disrespecting** their users, sometimes exploiting the fact that many
|
|
users are not fully aware of privacy issues that come as a “gift” when
|
|
you use those services, without spending any kind of effort to **teach**
|
|
the users. However, I do not want this post to become a flamewar, so I
|
|
will not mention any software explicitly. I think it should be quite
|
|
easy for the reader to find examples out there.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this post does not have a conclusion. I myself have not made my
|
|
mind completely about the subject, though I am obviously leaning towards
|
|
what most people would call the “radical” solution. But it is definitely
|
|
not an easy topic to discuss, or to argument about. Nonetheless, we are
|
|
closing our eyes to it, and we should not do so. The future of Free
|
|
Software depends also on what kinds of services we promote, and what
|
|
kinds of services we actually warn the users against. This is my
|
|
definition of **respect**, and this is why I think we should develop
|
|
Free **and** Respectful Software.
|