Free

I’ve scratched my head, read it again, scratched some more. Did some research on Wikipedia. Then went back and read it again to see if I got it then. I don’t. I’m still unsure of what the Free Software Foundation is getting at with their objections to the iPhone—and in particular what the whole movement’s goals are supposed to be. 

The FSF and the Free Software movement seems to reject the whole idea of private property. It is unclear to me what school of thought they believe justifies this rejection. Maybe I am mistaken and that they do not reject the idea of private property and that they are just pie-in-the-sky idealists. Which has its own consequences for practical living but ultimately, I think, is an admirable quality. I will continue on as if my initial impression is right—a somewhat unstable assumption but for the sake of getting my thoughts out, a necessary one.

Just to be clear, the notion of private property that I am talking about is this: if an individual or entity creates something under his/her/its own labor and capital, then those materials belong to that person or entity. Or, stated more simply, if one carves a stick into a spear using a rock that spear is now that persons property to do with as he or she pleases. To sell or to keep. To trade or to discard. 

Of course, there are some that reject the whole notion of private property. I am not one of them. In fact, I think private property is the bedrock of the whole idea of personal, political and economic freedom. That there is no other way to make out freedom from a collection of individuals without private property. But to be sure, there are some who do not agree with that notion. 

Wikipedia states that the Free Software Foundation has the ultimate goal of “liberating everyone ‘in cyberspace’.” Everyone. Think about that idea for a minute. It suddenly becomes a little more clear where the tongue in cheek definition of Freedom to FSF believers is “free to agree with us.” It is hard not to see the connection of this and philosophies like Marxism. Marxism also rejects the notion of private property. It also brings all people under its fold—kicking and screaming if necessary. This is not freedom. This is communism. 

Maybe that is a little harsh. Again, to be clear, this is not my final conclusion on the subject, but a preliminary assessment of it. But my initial impressions deeply disturbs me—a believer in and advocate of individual liberty.

The practical expectations of buying hardware and software from a company like Apple are clear. The software and hardware where developed by Apple. Built with Apple’s resources. From capital it owns on its Cupertino campus with employees who themselves trade their labor for money to Apple. The software and hardware is theirs to do with as they please, and they please to sell it.

Now, a product like computer software and hardware has certain expectations that make good business sense to both consumers and to Apple. In exchange for support and services for a product that is likely to have hick-ups, consumers give up the ability to do certain things with their hardware and software. Ultimately, if you so choose, you can reject those services from Apple and do whatever you please with hardware and software you bought from them. Then you have an open and free piece of computing equipment. 

The iPhone has a underground community of jailbreakers. Individuals who took an iPhone they purchased and are modifying it to suit their needs. Writing their own software for it to get the iPhone to do what they want. Since these actions are outside of Apple’s expectations, one of these jailbreakers cannot go to Apple and request support for the phone. That is a risk they were willing to take and they took it—freely. And it’s not illegal. 

The Free Software Foundation can do what they please. They can continue to write and use software that belongs to everyone. It is when they expect others to do as they do is when their idea of freedom will break down. 

Others will find that living within the confines of Apple’s expectations (their “world” if you so choose to call it that) meets their needs. To live in the Free Software Foundation’s world means a total dedication to the software that you’re using. It means software for software’s sake. In my world, I don’t have the time nor inclination to do such a thing. I use software to design websites. I don’t have the time, technical chops, nor desire to do software for software’s sake.

So my choice, using the freedom that I’m alloted in our mostly-but-not-totally free society, is to agree to Apple’s terms for my phone. I may or may not use services they provide. I may want to be able to take my MacBook Pro into the genius bar and have them service it. I may or may not want to buy music that I know is restricted with DRM software. I may or may not want to sync my data to the MobileMe cloud. These are all things that people have a choice to participate in—and there are benefits and trade-offs. And last time I checked, that still counted as freedom.