Cancelling Richard Stallman?

[New to Gemini? Have a look at my Gemini FAQ.]

This article was bi-posted to Gemini and the Web; Gemini version is here: gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/users/kraileth/neunix/2021/cancelling_rms.gmi

If you have any interest in FLOSS (Free and Libre Open-Source Software), you know who Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) is: As the founder of both GNU project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF), he’s quite an icon to many. In 2019, a scandal around deliberate (?) misunderstanding of what he said regarding one detail of the Epstein affair ultimately lead to him stepping down as president of the FSF. Now in March 2021 he returned to the organization’s board of directors. The latter fact was reason enough for quite some people to start a turmoil again, pressing for his second removal with an open letter.

Now personally I don’t like RMS much. I believe in permissive licenses and prefer those over copyleft in general and strongly over the GPL license family that Stallman stands for like no other person. I’m a happy Vi user and think that Emacs (RMS’s editor) is a great example for what software should not be like. I’ve also regularly opposed false claims of Stallman’s many fans and their very pessimistic view on important topics like freedom and life in general. In fact I’ve used neologisms like Stallmanism and Stallmanites to describe the indiscriminate ideology of Stallman and his most pig-headed followers.

Today I’ve signed another Open Letter supporting RMS and I’m even writing this article. How come?

Cancel culture

Let me repeat: I do not particularly like the person RMS nor do I uncritically approve of what he stands for. On the contrary. But as an Open Source enthusiast and advocate who has tried to argue against his positions I do even less approve of how a mob of phony hypocrites is acting against him. Gesture politics is wrong and actually harmful. Let’s talk about real problems in this world and not publicly slay giants of the Free Software movement by basically backstabbing them!

The phenomenon of what is often called “cancel culture” these days is one brutal form of contemporary witch-hunt. It is deeply anti liberal and anti free speech. Real people are “convicted” not by a judge after at least being able to plead innocent and have their case examined duly. No, it’s a gang with a certain political agenda that decides someone is guilty of whatever and will just insist on action to be taken on their judgement. This is much, much more dangerous than most neutral observers think. If such a campaign is successful it means that de facto there is a new power along the actual written law – and it may even take precedence over it!

Let’s think about this for a moment. Maybe you’ve been a lawful citizen all your life. You are an esteemed member of society and maybe even earned honors and awards. But then all of the sudden somebody points at you and shouts: “You did XYZ thirty years ago!” While that was nothing special back in the day and was (and is!) perfectly legal, more and more people join in, screaming at you that this is a “disgrace” and completely “inexcusable”… How do you defend against such a campaign?

  • You could explain that it’s not an illegal thing. Then the mob will eat you raw, yelling that this clearly shows “how you have not even learned a thing”!
  • You could state that you are deeply sorry and honestly wish you had acted differently. But as your actions are by the mob’s definition “inexcusable”, you’re done for anyway.
  • Or you could try a combination of both. Yet you’ll still drown in the public wrath directed at you.

Plead guilty or innocent before the judgement of the campaigners – it doesn’t make too much of a difference. And all of that while you are still very much spotless and respectable by law! This violates a number of fundamental legal principles of constitutional states:

  • Nulla poena sine lege (“No punishment without a law”): If no rule exists that prohibits something, you cannot be punished for it.
  • Nulla poena sine lege certa (“No punishment without precise law”): You cannot be convicted on base of a law that describes “somewhat similar” deeds.
  • Nulla poena sine lege praevia (“No punishment without previous law”): If you did something before it was declared a crime, you cannot be punished. Ex postfacto laws are invalid!
  • And more…

The effects of “cancel culture” that we see today are a true nightmare for any rational thinking person. You can be fried decades from now for something you do today without any bad will at all! Also it means turning away from the Christian principle of forgiveness for repentant offenders and thus shakes the very foundation of Western society as we know it. Welcome, friends, to our Brave New… τυραννίς! (I’m using the Greek word Tyrannis on purpose here, because I refer to an ancient Greek Tyrannos here and not modern notions of “Tyranny” and “Tyrant” which is a judgmental and negatively connoted term.)

Context!

Campaigns like the aforementioned against RMS work according their own twisted logic – and that only really applies if you can make people so upset that they are willing to ignore each and every context.

I’m a sysadmin; if you hear me talking about “killing all children” that does not make me a misanthropist or a violent person! Now I can hear you say: Fine, but there are things that are despicable no matter the context! Beg your pardon, but think again, please. Everything is subject to context.

Even though most people would agree to the statement “killing is wrong”, let me ask you if you really think your local butcher is a criminal (no food debate, please. I’ve been a vegetarian myself for close to a decade, but I am a liberal being accepting other people’s different thinking on such a matter)? It actually makes much of a difference if you think that “Thou shalt not kill” is one of the 10 commandments – or if you take a more precise translation of “Thou shalt not murder“!

Or for another example: Could there really be any context that would make the statement “rape should not be punished” anything but loathsome? Yes, of course! It can for example be a premiss in thinking about the consequences of such a stance. And that would be a perfectly legitimate thing: Unbiased thinking about something. There can be value in thinking over even the seemingly most absurd premisses like that.

There are two very important pieces of general context that the campaigners misappropriate:

  • What was the general public feeling towards XYZ at that point in time? Was it really such a huge deal back then? If not: How can you dare to not only dictate your moral values to others but even demand different behavior when what you dislike today was still very common?
  • RMS is autistic. And not even the very light form of it. People’s feelings are hard (maybe even impossible) for him to really understand.

Stallman is for example convinced that our planet is over-populated. When he learned that a person he had email contact with was going to be a father soon, he seriously expressed his sympathy – obviously not knowing that this is usually a joyful event for people…

Isn’t taking RMS’ autism into account a form of “abelism” by the campaigners? 🤪

Blame game

But let’s take a quick look of what people are accusing him. Here’s the beginning of the open letter with some comments from me:

Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety.

Oh, wow. That’s a fairly “standard” set of charges. There’s nothing concrete here, just pretty weird claims made by people who love to hate opinions different from theirs…

These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities.

Sorry, but no. You presume to define something (in a grotesque way with no room for discussion about your definitions!), incriminate somebody (thus harming his reputation), hand down a verdict (without the need to even hear the defendant, because why should you?) and then press to enforce the judgment (ASAP of course). This is how things go in a dictatorship. We’re getting there, mind you, but are not quite there just yet. Get a life, stop being such ignorant jerks and prepare to have your creed challenged.

There’s more in the letter, but it all boils down to making more accusations and impudent demands. I don’t really want to waste any more time on it. Let’s hope that this is where such a campaign can finally be stopped.

If we could all return to discussing in a civilized manner again, that would be a giant step forward.

Dystopian Open Source

[New to Gemini? Have a look at my Gemini FAQ.]

This article was bi-posted to Gemini and the Web; Gemini version is here: gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/users/kraileth/neunix/2021/dystopian_open_source.gmi

Happy New Year dear reader! The other day I watched a video on YouTube that had only 6 views since last October. It is about a very important topic, though, and I wish it would have a larger impact as well as get more people alarmed and thinking about the current trends in Open Source. This is not a “OMG we’re all doomed!!1” post, but I want to talk about what I feel are grave dangers that we should really, really aim some serious consideration at.

“Pay to Play”

For the readers who would like to watch the video (about 7 minutes), it’s here. Some background info: It’s by Lucas Holt. He is the lead developer of MidnightBSD, a project that began as a Fork of FreeBSD 6.1 and aimed for better usability on the desktop. There were a couple of people who contributed to the project over time, but it never really took off. Therefore it has continued as a project almost entirely done by one man.

It’s not hard to imagine just how much work it is to keep an entire operating system going; much larger teams have failed to deliver something useful after all. So while it’s no wonder that MidnightBSD is not in a state where anybody would recommend it to put to everyday usage, I cannot deny that I admire all the work that has been done.

Holt has merged changes back from FreeBSD several times, eventually updating the system to basically 11.4 plus the MidnightBSD additions and changes. He maintains almost 5,000 ports for his platform (of course not all are in perfect shape, though). And he has kept the project going since about 2006 – despite all the taunting and acid-tongued comments on “the most useless OS ever” and things like that. Even though I never found somewhat serious use for MidnightBSD (and I tried a couple of times!), considering all of that he has earned my deepest respect.

To sum up the video: He talks about a trend in Open Source that some very important projects started to raise the bar on contributing to them. Sometimes you’re required to employ two full-time (!) developers to be considered even worth hearing. Others require you to provide them with e.g. a paid Amazon EC2 instance to run their CI on. And even where that’s not the case, some decision makers will just turn you down if you dare to hand in patches for a platform that’s not a huge player itself.

Quite a few people do not even try to hide that they only ever care about Linux and Holt has made the observation that some of the worst-behaving, most arrogant of these are – Redhat employees. There are people on various developer teams that choose to deliberately ruin things for smaller projects, which is certainly not good and shouldn’t be what Open Source is about.

What does Open Source mean to us?

At a bare minimum, Open Source only means that the source for some application, collection of software or even entire operating system is available to look at. I could write some program, put the code under an extremely restrictive license and still call this thing “Open Source” as long as I make the code available by some means. One could argue that in the truest sense of the two words that make up the term, that would be a valid way to do things. But that’s not what Open Source is or ever was about!

There are various licenses out there that are closely related to Open Source. Taking a closer look at them is one great way to find the very essence of what Open Source actually is. There are two important families of such licenses: The so-called Copyleft licenses and the permissive licenses. One could say that downright religious wars have been waged about which side holds the one real truth…

People who have been reading my blog for a while know that I do have a preference and made quite clear which camp I belong to, even though I reject the insane hostility that some zealots preach. But while the long-standing… err… let’s say: controversy, is an important part of Open Source culture, the details are less relevant to our topic here. They basically disagree on the question of what requirements to put in the license. Should there be any at all? Is it sufficient to ask for giving credit to the original authors? Or should users be forced to keep the source open for example?

Both license families however do not dispute the fundamental rights given to users: They want you to be able to study the code, to build it yourself, to make changes and to put the resulting programs to good use. While it’s usually not explicit, the very idea behind all of Open Source is to allow for collaboration.

Forkability of Open Source projects

Over the years we’ve seen a lot of uproar in the community when the leaders of some project made decisions that go against these core values of Open Source. While some even committed the ultimate sin of closing down formerly open code, most of the time it’s been slightly less harsh. Still we have seen XFree86 basically falling into oblivion after Xorg was forked from it. The reason this happened was a license change: One individual felt that it was time for a little bit of extra fame – and eventually he ended up blowing his work to pieces. Other examples are pfSense and OPNsense, Owncloud and Nextcloud or Bacula and Bareos. When greed strikes, some previously sane people begin to think that it’s a good idea to implement restrictions, rip off the community and go “premium”.

One of the great virtues of Open Source is that a continuation of the software in the old way of the project is possible. With OPNsense we still have a great, permissively licensed firewall OS based on FreeBSD and Pf despite NetGate’s efforts to mess with pfSense. Bareos still has the features that Bacula cut out (!) of the Open Source version and moved to the commercial one. And so on. The very nature of Open Source also allows for people to pick up and continue some software when the original project shuts down for whatever reason.

There are a lot of benefits to Open Source over Closed Source models. But is it really immune to each and every attack you can aim at it?

Three dangers to Open Source!

There is always the pretty obvious danger of closing down source code if the license does not prohibit that. Though I make the claim that this in fact mostly a non-issue. There are a lot of voices out there who are going hysteric about this. But despite what they try to make things look, it is impossible to close down source code that is under an Open Source license! A project can stop releasing the source for newer versions, effectively stopping to distribute current code. But then the Open Source community can always stop using that stuff and continue on with the a fork that stays open.

But we haven’t talked about three other immanent dangers: narrow-mindedness, non-portability and leadership driven by monetary interest.

Narrow-mindedness

One could say that today Open Source is victim of its overwhelming success. A lot of companies and individual developers jumped the wagon because it’s very much beneficial for them. “Let’s put the source on GitHub and people might report issues or even open pull-requests, actively improving our code – all for free!” While this is a pretty smart thing to do from a commercial point of view, in this case software code was not opened up because somebody really believes in the ideas of Open Source. It was merely done to benefit from some of the most obvious advantages.

Depending on how far-sighted such an actor is, he might understand the indirect advantages to the project when keeping things as open as possible – or maybe not. For example a developer might decide that he’ll only ever use Ubuntu. Somebody reports a problem with Arch Linux: Close (“not supported!”). Another person opens a PR adding NetBSD support: Close (“Get lost, freak!”).

Such behavior is about as stupid and when it comes to the values also as anti Open Source as it gets. Witnessing something like this makes people who actually care about Open Source cringe. How can anybody be too blind to see that they are hurting themselves in the long run? But it happens time and time again. By turning down the Arch guy, the project has probably lost a future contributor – and maybe the issue reported was due to incompatibilities with the never GCC in Arch that will eventually land in Ubuntu, too, and could have been fixed ahead of time…

Open Source is about being open-minded. Just publishing the source and fishing for free contributions while living the ways of a closed-source spirit is in fact a real threat to Open Source. I wish more people would just say no to projects that regularly say “no” to others (without a good reason). It’s perfectly fine that some project cannot guarantee their software to even compile on illumos all the time. But the illumos people will take care of that and probably submit patches if needed. But refusing to even talk about possible support for that platform is very bad style and does not fit well with the ideals of Open Source.

If I witness that an arrogant developer insults, say a Haiku person, I’ll go looking for more welcoming alternatives (and am perfectly willing to accept something that is technically less ideal for now). Not because I’ve ever used Haiku or do plan to do so. But simply because I believe in Open Source and in fact have a heart for the cool smaller projects that are doing interesting things aside of the often somewhat boring mainstream.

Non-portability

Somewhat related to the point above is (deliberate) non-portability. A great example of this is Systemd. Yes, there have been many, many hateful comments about it and there are people who have stated that they really hope the main developer will keep the promise to never make it portable “so that *BSD is never going to be infected”.

But whatever your stance on this particular case is – there is an important fact: As soon as any such non-portable Open Source project gains a certain popularity, it will begin to poison other projects, too. Some developers will add dependencies to such non-portable software and thus make their own software unusable on other platforms even though that very software alone would work perfectly fine! Sometimes this happens because developers make the false assumption that “everybody uses Systemd today, anyway”, sometimes because they use it themselves and don’t realize the implication of making it a mandatory requirement.

If this happens to a project that basically has three users world-wide, it’s a pitty but does not have a major impact. If it’s a software however that is a critical component in various downstream projects it can potentially affect millions of users. The right thing here is not to break solidarity with other platforms. Even if the primary platform for your project is Linux, never ever go as far as adding a hard dependency on Systemd and other such software! If you can, it’s much better to make support optional so that people who want to use it benefit from existing support. But don’t ruin the day for everybody else!

And think again about the exemplary NetBSD pull-request mentioned above: Assume that the developer had shown less hostility and accepted the PR (with no promises to ever test if things actually work properly or at all). The software would have landed in Pkgsrc and somebody else would soon have hit a problem due to a corner case on NetBSD/SPARC64. A closer inspection of that would have revealed a serious bug that remained undetected and unfixed. After a new feature was added not much later, the bug became exploitable. Eventually the project gained a “nice” new CVE of severity 9.2 – which could well have been avoided in an alternate reality where the project leader had had a more friendly and open-minded personality…

Taking portability very seriously is exceptionally hard work. But remember: Nobody is asking you to support all the hardware you probably don’t even have or all the operating systems that you don’t know your way around on. But just be open to enthusiasts who care for such platforms and let them at least contribute.

Leadership with commercial interests

This one is a no-brainer – but unfortunately one that we can see happening more and more often. Over the last few years people started to complain about e.g. Linux being “hi-jacked by corporations”. And there is some truth to it: There is a lot of paid work being done on various Open Source projects. Some of the companies that pay developers do so because they have an interest in improving Open Source software they use. A couple even fund such projects because they feel giving back something after receiving for free is the right thing to do. But then there’s the other type, too: Corporations that have their very own agenda and leverage the fact that decision makers on some projects are their employees to influence development.

Be it the person responsible for a certain kernel subsystem turning down good patches that would be beneficial for a lot of people for seemingly no good reason – but in fact because they were handed in by a competitor because his employer is secretly working on something similar and has an interest to get that one in instead. Be it because the employer thinks that the developer is not payed to do anything for platforms that are not of interest to its own commercial plan and is expected to simply turn those down to “save time” for “important work”. Things like that actually happen and have been happening for a while now.

Limiting the influence of commercial companies is a topic on its own. IMO more projects should think about governance models much more deeply and consider the possible impacts of what can happen if a malicious actor buys in.

Towards a more far-sighted, “vrij” Open Source?

As noted above, I feel that some actors in Open Source are too much focused on their own use-case only and are completely ignorant of what other people might be interested in. But as this post’s topic was a very negative one, I’d like to end it more positively. Despite the relatively rare but very unfortunate misbehaving of some representatives of important projects, the overwhelming majority of people in Open Source are happy to allow contributions from more “exotic” projects.

But what’s that funny looking word doing there in the heading? Let me explain. We already have FOSS, an acronym for “Free and Open Source Software”. There’s a group of people arguing that we should rather focus on what they call FLOSS, “Free and Libre Open Source Software”. The “libre” in there is meant to put focus on some copyleft ideas of freedom – “free” was already taken and has the problem that the English word doesn’t distinguish between free “as in freedom” and free of charge. I feel that a term that emphasizes the community aspect of Open Source, the invitation to just about anybody to collaborate and Open Source solidarity with systems other than what I use, could be helpful. How about VOSS? I think it’s better than fitting in another letter there.

Vrij is the Dutch word for free. Why Dutch? For one part to honor the work that has been done at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam (for readers who noticed the additional “e”: That’s due to inflection). Just think of the nowadays often overlooked work of Professor Tanenbaum e.g. with Minix (which inspired Linux among other things). The other thing is that it’s relatively easy to pronounce for people who speak English. It’s not completely similar but relatively close to the English “fray”. And if you’re looking for the noun, there’s both vrijheid and vrijdom. I think the latter is less common, but again: It’s much closer to English “freedom” and thus probably much more practical.

So… I really care for vrij(e) Open Source Software! Do you?

ZFS and GPL terror: How much freedom is there in Linux?

There has been a long debate about whether man is able to learn from history. I’d argue that we can – at least to some degree. One of the lessons that we could have learned by now is how revolutions work. They begin with the noblest of ideas that many followers wholeheartedly support and may even risk their lives for. They promise to rid the poor suppressed people of the dreaded current authorities. When they are over (and they didn’t fail obviously) they will have replaced the old authorities with – new authorities. These might be “better” (or rather: somewhat less bad) than the old ones if we’re lucky, but they are sure to be miles away from what the revolution promised to establish.

Death to the monopoly!

Do you remember Microsoft? No, not the modern “cloud first” company that runs Azure and bought Github. I mean good old Microsoft that used to dominate the PC market with their Windows operating system. The company that used their market position with Windows 3.x to FUD Digital Research and their superior DR-DOS out of the market by displaying a harmless line of text with a warning about possible compatibility issues. The company that spent time and resources on strategies to extinguish Open Source.

Yes, due to vendor lock-in (e.g. people needing software that only runs on Windows) and to laziness (just using whatever comes installed on a pc), they have maintained their dominance on the desktop. However the importance of it has been on a long decline: Even Microsoft have acknowledged this by demoting their former flagship product and even thinking of making it available for free. They didn’t quite take that extreme step, but it’s hard to argue that Windows still has the importance it had since the 1990’s up to the early 2010’s.

They’ve totally lost the mobile market – Windows Phone is dead – and are not doing too well in the server market, either.

A software Golden Age with Linux?

In both areas Linux has won: It’s basically everywhere today! Got a web-facing server? It’s quite likely running some Linux distro. With most smart phones on the planet it’s Android – using a modified Linux kernel – that drives them. And even in space – on the ISS – Linux is in use.

All of us who have fought against the evil monopoly could now be proud of what was accomplished, right? Right? Not so much. There’s a new monopolist out there, and while it’s adhering to Open Source principles by the letter, it has long since started actually violating the idea by turning it against us.

For those who do not deliberately look the other way, Linux has mostly destroyed POSIX. How’s that? By more or less absorbing it! If software is written with POSIX in mind, today that means it’s written to work on Linux. However POSIX was the idea to establish a common ground to ensure that software runs across all of the *nix platforms! Reducing it basically to one target shattered the whole vision to pieces. Just ask a developer working on a Unix-like OS that is not Linux about POSIX and the penguin OS… You’re not in for stories about respect and being considerate of other systems. One could even say that they have repeatedly acted quite rude and ignorant.

But that’s only one of the problems with Linux. There are definitely others – like people acting all high and mighty and bullying others. The reason for this post is one such case.

ZFS – the undesirable guest

ZFS is todays most advanced filesystem. It originated on the Solaris operating system and thanks to Sun’s decision to open it up, we have it available on quite a number of Unix-like operating systems. That’s just great! Great for everyone.

For everyone? Nope. There are people out there who don’t like ZFS. Which is totally fine, they don’t need to use it after all. But worse: There are people who actively hate ZFS and think that others should not use it. Ok, it’s nothing new that some random guys on the net are acting like assholes, trying to tell you what you must not do, right? Whoever has been online for more than a couple of days probably already got used to it. Unfortunately its still worse: One such spoilsport is Greg Kroah-Hartman, Linux guru and informal second-in-command after Linus Torvalds.

There have been some attempts to defend the stance of this kernel developer. One was to point at the fact that the “ZFS on Linux” (ZoL) port uses two kernel functions, __kernel_fpu_begin() and __kernel_fpu_end(), which have been deprecated for a very long time and that it makes sense to finally get rid of them since nothing in-kernel uses it anymore. Nobody is going to argue against that. The problem becomes clear by looking at the bigger picture, though:

The need for functions doing just what the old ones did has of course not vanished. The functions have been replaced with other ones. And those ones are deliberately made GPL-only. Yes, that’s right: There’s no technical reason whatsoever! It’s purely ideology – and it’s a terrible one.

License matters

I’ve written about licenses in the past, making my position quite clear: It’s the authors right to choose whatever license he or she thinks is right for the project, but personally I would not recommend using pessimistic (copyleft) licenses since they do more harm than good.

While I didn’t have any plans to re-visit this topic anytime soon, I feel like I have to. Discussing the matter on a German tech forum, I encountered all the usual arguments and claims – most of which are either inappropriate or even outright wrong:

  • It’s about Open Source!
  • No it’s absolutely not. ZFS is Open Source.

  • Only copyleft will make sure that code remains free!
  • Sorry, ZFS is licensed under the CDDL – which is a copyleft license.

  • Sun deliberately made the CDDL incompatible with the GPL!
  • This is a claim supported primarily by one former employee of Sun. Others disagree. And even if it was verifiably true: What about Open Source values? Since when is the GPL the only acceptable Open Source license? (If you want to read more, user s4b dug out some old articles about Sun actually supporting GPLv3 and thinking about re-licensing OpenSolaris! The forum post is in German, but the interesting thing there is the links.)

  • Linux owes its success to the GPL! Every Open Source project needs to adopt it!
  • This is a pretty popular myth. Like every myth there’s some truth to it: Linux benefited from the GPL. If it had been licensed differently, it might have benefited from that other license. Nobody can prove that it benefited more from the GPL or would have from another license.

  • The GPL is needed, because otherwise greedy companies will suck your project dry and close down your code!
  • This has undoubtedly happened. Still it’s not as much of a problem as some people claim: They like to suggest that formerly free code somehow vanishes when used in proprietary projects. Of course that’s not true. What those people actually dislike is that a corporation is using free code for commercial products. This can be criticized, but it makes sense to do that in an honest way.

  • Linux and BSD had the same preconditions. Linux prospers while BSD is dying and has fallen into insignificance! You see the pattern?
  • *sign* Looks like you don’t know the history of Unix…

  • You’re an idiot. Whenever there’s a GPL’d project and a similar one that’s permissively licensed, the former succeeds!
  • I bet you use Mir (GPL) or DirectFB (LGPL) and not X.org or Wayland (both MIT), right?

What we can witness here is the spirit of what I’d describe as GPL supremacist. The above (and more) attacks aren’t much of a problem. They are usually pretty weak and the GPL zealots get enraged quite easy. It’s the whole idea to trade the values of Open Source for religious GPL worship (Thou shalt not have any licenses before me!) that’s highly problematic.

And no, I’m not calling everybody who supports the idea of the GPL a zealot. There are people who use the license because it fits their plans for a piece of software and who can make very sensible points for why they are using it. I think that in general the GPL is far from being the best license out there, but that’s my personal preference. It’s perfectly legitimate to use the GPL and to promote it – it is an Open Source license after all! And it’s also fine to argue about which license is right for some project.

My point here is that those overzealous people who try to actually force others to turn towards the GPL are threatening license freedom and that it’s time to just say “no” to them.

Are there any alternatives?

Of course there are alternatives. If you are concerned about things like this (whether you are dependent on modules that are developed out-of-kernel or not), you might want to make 2019 the year to evaluate *BSD. Despite repeated claims, BSD is not “dying” – it’s well alive and innovative. Yes there are areas where it’s lacking behind, which is no wonder considering that there’s a much smaller community behind it and far less companies pumping money into it. There are companies interested in seeing BSD prosper, though. In fact even some big ones like Netflix, Intel and others.

Linux developer Christoph Hellwig actually advises to switch to FreeBSD in a reply to a person who has been a Linux advocate for a long time but depends on ZFS for work. And that recommendation is not actually a bad one. A monopoly is never a good thing. Not even for Linux. It makes sense to support the alternatives out there, especially since there are some viable options!

Speaking about heterogenous environments: Have you heard of Verisign? They run the registry for .com and .net among other things. They’ve built their infrastructure 1/3 on Linux, 1/3 on FreeBSD and 1/3 on Solaris for ultra-high resiliency. While that might be an excellent choice for critical services, it might be hard for smaller companies to find employees that are specialized in those operating systems. But bringing in a little BSD into your Linux-only infrastructure might be a good idea anyway and in fact even lead to future competitive advantage.

FreeBSD is an excellent OS for your server and also well fit if you are doing embedded development. It’s free, ruled by a core team elected by the developers, and available under the very permissive BSD 2-clause license. While it’s completely possible to run it as a desktop, too (I do that on all of my machines both private and at work and it has been my daily driver for a couple of years now), it makes sense to look at a desktop-focused project like GhostBSD or Project Trident for an easy start.

So – how important is ZFS to you – and how much do you value freedom? The initial difficulty that the ZOL project had has been overcome – however they are just working around it. The potential problem that non-GPL code has when working closely with Linux remains. Are you willing to look left and right? You might find that there’s some good things out there that actually make life easier.

Craven New World – or how to ruin the net

Alright. I never expected to write about anything remotely “political” on my blog… It’s about technical things, right? Ok, ok, free software is “political” all by itself. Kind of. But that’s about it.

While at times I’m really sick of what happens on the world, that doesn’t fit well on a blog about computer topics. I admit that I was tempted two or three times to write something about all the blatant and ruthless lies against Russia and things like that. But this is not the right place for those topics. So I resisted. Then came July 1st…

I begun to write a full-sized rant on that day but in the end decided to drop it and re-think things when I got calm again. Since I’m still stunned and angry at the same time, I’ve simply got to write an article now nevertheless.

The one and only

In that morning I read about how Paypal froze ProtonMail’s account. While it is nothing new that Paypal freezes accounts, the rationale was quite interesting. ProtonMail is a provider of email services. What makes them stand out is that they are developing an easy-to-use email system that features end-to-end encryption.

Now it’s a well-known fact that there are powers out there who have no respect at all for your privacy. They want to know where you go, what you download and what you talk about when you mail grandma. You could be a dangerous villain, skilled to pretend the contrary after all – and if they can’t find out what color your underwear is, you might even get away with it!

From that point of view, encryption is… well, irritating to say the least. Which makes it a clear thing that ProtonMail sucks big time. How dare they help people who prefer to keep private things private? So Paypal froze their account, because that company “wasn’t sure whether ProtonMail had approval by the gouvernment” for their business. As a matter of fact, the US have quite a few strange laws. But that’s another thing and it’s perfectly fine if an American company doesn’t wish to assist another American company in doing something unlawful. Except – ProtonMail is not an American company… It’s based in Switzerland!

How can it be that a Swiss company would require US approval for their business? And it’s not even the first time that something like that happens. The USA has blackmailed Switzerland not too long ago. And with their “compliance” ideology they are choking many others, too. This is a very alarming and gross practice. But it is, I cannot repeat it often enough, nothing new.

Just hand it to us!

A while later I read about how Microsoft had just seized more than 20 domains owned by no-ip. This cut off almost two million users from using the no-ip service. And what was the reason for such a draconian action? Was the life of the president at stake? Nope. Was the whole country threatened by some ancient evil perhaps? Not really. It was far worse than that: Microsoft had found a judge which allowed the domain seizure because Microsoft claimed that there were two accounts involved in spreading malware…

This was the moment I had to take a look at the calendar just to make sure that I didn’t mess up things and it was actually April 1st! But no – unfortunately not.

I just want to add that I am not an no-ip user and wasn’t affected personally. But I know people who were – one was even affected enough to finally give Linux more room both for private use and in his company. So while the whole thing is pretty much insane it has its good sides, too. Especially since I expect more people to be really upset after what Microsoft did. Maybe they should rather spend their time fixing their own broken windows than throwing stones at other people’s business?

Oy vey, we want your money!

Ah, what a day. We had some news which were hard to believe if such things weren’t happening over and over again. Then there was some news which left me incredulously shaking my head. What Microsoft did was ludicrous and the fact that some judge ruled in their favor is downright absurd. That cannot possibly be surpassed, can it? Yes. Unfortunately it can.

The last news is just so completely off the scala, that I don’t find any words for it (even in my native language that is). While the Microsoft case makes you question your sanity, the other thing that happened makes you struggle for your faith in mankind. Seriously.

So what happened? Well. More or less this:

Group A (private individuals) who are citizens of
state B (Israel) mandate
organisation C (a jewish law firm) to sue
state D (shiit (!) theocracy Iran) in
state E (the USA) for alleged financial support of
organisation F (sunni (!) Hamas) who are accused of
action G (a terrorist attack) in
territory H (the Gaza stripe) which belongs to
state I (Palestine) as group A claims they have suffered from action G.

Now under normal circumstances you’d laugh at any weirdo who can come up with such an idea – let alone actually carry it out… When you’re finished laughing and wiped the tears out of your eyes, you wish him that he’ll find a good mental doctor.

The story is not over, however. The US court rules in favor of the claimant – and since Iran did what any sane person would do and denies this arrogant impertinence, there’s now the fine (like I said I’m at a loss for words) idea: distrainment of the Iranian TLD (.ir)!!

Come on! Distrain a TLD on the net? Seems like they are really working hard to ruin the net. Congratulations to all those bright people involved.

What’s the world coming to?

In my country (Germany) the phenomena of anti-americanism is on the rise. Many people are in rage because of what the NSA did (and without any doubt continues to do). This is a rather sad thing actually, but in many cases I agree with what people say. The US government is one of the most corrupted an unsound entities of the world. Yet – and that deserves to be emphasized – that doesn’t make all Americans warmongers or liars.

The government in my country is run by criminals as well and so I’m probably not in the best position to complain. After all former chancellor Schröder openly admitted (in one of the biggest newspapers of the country!) that the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia (which he supported) were against international law. By stating so he confessed to be a war criminal – and that had no consequences whatsoever. Funny, isn’t it? And still I’d admit any time that I think of him as a more “honest” person than current chancellor Merkel…

Action!

I’d really like to ask every and all Americans to try hard and reclaim their country. But there’s not too much people who value freedom can do right now. Yet there is one thing we can all do: Start using encryption. Yes, invest that half of an hour to teach your grandmother how to write and read encrypted mail. It’s not that hard.

You are telling me that you have nothing to hide? That’s great! Why? Simple: Same here. It’s great because it is this important little fact that makes us qualify to begin encrypting. Currently it makes you suspect if you use encryption. Well, I can live with that.

I also don’t mind if those who think they absolutely have to know what I mail my grandmother break the encryption. But if they want to, they may well invest quite a bit of effort. If they find it worth the time and resources to learn how much my children have grown since we last visited her, that’s fine for me. If everybody used encryption it would be a normal activity. Let’s aim for that!

So – what about you?