> During all of FSF's entire existence, it kept presenting gloomy visions > of freedom-derived future we're to face if we'll give in to non-free > software, but the situation didn't go any worser as the years went by. I think you are wrong. Let's just recall a few differences between 1985 (when Stallman started GNU) and 2003: * In 1985, a large number of computer systems were in use. PDP-11s, VAXes, Commodore-64s, Ataris, IBM PCs, Apple, just to name a few. Many operating systems were in use, and people had a lot of choice about which computer they wanted to buy. They even had a Unix clone from Microsoft, and three MS-Windows-like solutions to choose from. Nowadays, personal computer buyers face virtually no choice (what are the figures now, 95% Wintel, 5% Mac?) and workstation buyers also get a decreasing amount of choice. You know, I have a keychain I got 6 years ago or so from Digital. On one side it says "Unix, live free or die!", and on the other side it says "Why wait for HP?". Apparently HP was a big competitor of Digital back then. And now? Both of them have become the same company. * In 1985, a large percentage of the (then few!) computer users had access to the source code of the operating-system they were using and full freedom to do whatever they wanted with it, except redistribute it. In fact, I started learning Unix (in 1985) on a system where the entire source of the system was available to me in a directory strangely named "/n/bowell". The availability of source was especially common in universities, where BSD was prevalent. Nowadays Universities have a majority of Windows terminals, and try to lock down everything they possibly can from the students. * In 1985, VCRs (video-cassette recorders) were becoming commonplace (not in Israel with its one B&W channel, but in the US). In 2003, DVDs are becoming common place. What's the difference? VCRs were about increasing your freedom - letting you time-shift your TV watching (in fact, Sony went to court, and won, defending this issue), letting you watch your favorite movies again, letting you pause/rewind/ fast forward over commercials, and so on. DVDs, on the other hand, were largely invented (and I'm not exaggerating here!) as a way to limit the consumer's freedoms. If the DVD people were really after a better digital format, they could have made it a free (and open) format like the CD of 20 years earlier. The Content Scrambling System (CSS) had absolutely nothing to do with preventing illegal copying, and everything with limiting the legal buyer's freedom: the freedom to bring your DVD collection from country to country, the freedom to skip over commercials in the beginning of the movie, the freedom to use a DVD-player from any vendor (including a free-software implementations) - all these are what the DVD CSS was deliberately designed to prevent. In fact for this reason I am *BOYCOTTING* DVD. I do not have a DVD player and I will not have one until vendors (including free-software writers) are no longer limited in making DVD players. The same Sony who 20 years earlier battled the movie studios in court, now became a huge studio owner itself, and stop caring about consumers' freedoms and rights. * In 1976 (slightly before the time we were talking about, but still close), copyright protection was extended from 56 to 100 years. * In 1985 and later, when I was growing up, sharing was considered something that was in the public interest. Putting more information in the hands of the public was considered a good thing for the country to do. Book libraries existed and nobody thought that paying $10 a year for a library subscription (when one book costs more than that) was cheating the publishers out of their earning. People listened to music on the radio, and kids recorded music from it on tape, and nobody was preaching against it (like is becoming very common now in TV ads). But this has drastically changed. Around 1985, Video rental stores appeared (which are now becoming DVD rental places) and these started to charge a significant amount of money (but less than they do today!) per rental. Why such a difference from the policy in books? Because they (the studios and the rental stores) could get away with it. I remember around 1988, a public library in New-Jersey which lended out music CDs, just like it did books. Do you think this will be "allowed" today??? (and no, this again has nothing to do with piracy. In 1988, people were still used to cassette tapes and didn't mind recording the CD to tape. Today, people can "pirate" the CD from friends, or download it over the Internet, and don't need to resort to taking it out from a library). * In 1985, there were much fewer legal problems preventing software writers from writing new software (free or not). There were no laws like the DMCA, and much fewer software pantents. I think these are enough examples to show you the "war" hasn't been won yet, and worse - the situation has in many ways deteriorated. Certainly there are other examples in the opposite direction, but it's very hard to say the situation improved since the time Stallman started GNU. And besides, even if you believe the freedom of information situation hasn't deteriorated over the years, what makes you think it won't if we stop paying attention to this issue? -- Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Jan 9 2003, 7 Shevat 5763 > Libraries still exist, last time I checked. Of course book libraries still exist. But what about the new kinds of media that have been invented in the last two decades? How come they did not appear in public libraries? CDs? Videos? DVDs? Software? And excuse me for being pessimistic, but I have a hunch that if the current trends continues, book libraries will also be a thing of the past in 20 years. How long do you think the book publishers will agree to stay out of the pay- per-use or pay-per-eyeball party? Why should they agree to have their books lent out, when the CD and DVD publishers don't let you do that (unless the rental place pays them percentages?). Already, various forms of "EBooks" (slated to replace books printed on sheets of dead trees) prevent you from lending out your ebook, using all sorts of tricks of binding a copy of a ebook to one machine. Software also does it. -- Nadav Har'El | Saturday, Jan 11 2003, 8 Shevat 5763 The EFF (Electronic Fronteer Foundation) is running on their site an interesting summmary [1] of the injustices the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) has helped inflict on the American public in the last four years. Things that were unimagineable when the FSF was created. Things like preventing scientific research, people getting arrested for programming, censorship of magazines and online sites, limiting fair use, preventing time and space-shifting, killing the alternative toner- cartridge market, killing competition to Sony Playstation, preventing owners of robot dogs from reprogramming them, and more. [1] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html -- Nadav Har'El | Sunday, Jan 12 2003, 9 Shevat 5763