GNU/Linux is growing all the time: new software is being created; new copies downloaded or bought; new users are discovering free software for the first time. With this growth we have seen the rise of polished distributions, sales-minded distributors, “XX” software is being released, and so free software is gaining commercial success in many fields. Even governments, from Peru to the UK, are now racing to use free software. But governments seem to be the only ones who are talking about switching specifically because they want free software, not just stable, secure and powerful software. It seems to me that many distributors are forgetting the roots of their products, and that’s a dangerous thing.

Free software (or, if you like, “open source software”, just replace the terms as you wish) is about more than high quality and low price. The strict definition of both doesn’t even mention quality or price, they are merely incidental, and are only potential benefits. The strict definition is that binary programs can be freely copied, that the source code is available to all who want it (and, if the copyright owner desires, those who can pay for it), and that those who have the source code are free to modify it and redistribute the modified versions. Various licenses then dictate exactly how free we are in our use of the source code.

The freedom that these licenses give is the defining factor. And yet if you look at the web sites of many distributors, you won’t find any obvious mention of this freedom. Some distributors make passing comments about “the freedom our operating system will give you”, but they rarely explain themselves. If the users, potential or converted, are not fully aware of the defining factor of their operating system, what have they gained? A lot, perhaps, but not the most important thing of all: the knowledge that their operating system gives them the freedom to use their computer as they wish (within the confines of the law of course!)

If, over time, what triumphs is “Linux”, and not free software, then we have lost

Free software country

Now a common argument put forward is that you don’t need to know any of that to actually use the operating system. I can use Mozilla without knowing a thing about the license, and not be any worse off in my use thereof. But let me draw a comparison. As citizens of our countries, we are members of the community of citizens known as “society”, and our lives depend on the way that our societies and governments function. Hence at school we learn a little history, and a little about our country, and how it works. But the point is to ensure that we value our nation, we understand our role in our society, and we understand the rights we hold, so that if any of it changes, we can be aware of those changes, and object if we see fit. If enough people object, those changes can be prevented.

Gentoo’s social contract makes clear why free software is important

Now that is a little idealistic. No state in the world is that democratic or enlightened. The United States began on a good footing, but forgot to educate its children about its constitution, the way it functions, its history, and the world’s history. That, combined with other factors I shan’t touch on now, has lead to a country in which few people know and understand their rights, few know when they are changed, and so few object. A country founded on high and adventurous principles has stagnated and is now run more by corporate interests than the will of an active, educated public. (For the dubious technologist, you need look no further than the DMCA).

The free software movement started on high, adventurous principles. They’re enshrined in its licenses, and are well known by most of the programmers who have contributed to free software because they must know the licenses under which they release their work. If programmers were the only people to use free software, you could be fairly sure that the movement wouldn’t lose its momentum (though there will always be those who refuse to see how impossible the movement would be without the principles at the root of it). But for users, and even contributors whose work doesn’t go under licenses that they’d care to find out about (like documentation and graphics), there’s rarely an indication of these principles, let alone an explanation.