Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog

Over the past year or so, I've noticed a disturbing trend. Whenever the Free Software Foundation (FSF) posts anything on any subject, pundits leap to criticize it. The FSF is too negative, people like Brian Proffitt say. It's too ineffectual, people like Joe "Zonker"' Brockmeier say [See Correction in comments]. Just how the FSF might communicate effectively, they don't explain, but I get the strong impression that what these attacks really want is to let everyone know that the FSF is wrong.

Not that the FSF is above criticism. Although I'm probably more supportive of the FSF than either Proffitt or Brockmeier, I've been known to criticize it myself.

Nor can I deny that FSF founder Richard Stallman, for all his accomplishments, can be a problematic representative of the free software cause because of his dogmatic attitude and the the slow development of his thought. At their worst, his essays read like a collection of macros, with the identical content inserted automatically wherever it seems vaguely appropriate.

What disturbs me is not the fact of the criticism, but how it is made. For one thing, it seems unrealistic. It's all very well for Proffitt to say, as he did on Google+, that "I would hope that they would advocate the benefits of free software (of which there are many) without feeling the need to tear down everything else. Again."

But how, in practice, is the FSF supposed to approach subjects like Android in a positive light? While Stallman concedes that "the Android phones of today are considerably less bad than Apple or Windows smartphones," Android obviously isn't free software, although many people I talk to have the vague belief that it is.

Obviously, a debunking is in order, but by definition a debunking is negative. In fact, how is the FSF supposed to discuss the matter at all, especially when any free software alternative to Android is so small and so unknown that any attempt to advocate it would automatically discredit itself?

Publicity on a small budget

Like most non-profits, the FSF scrambles to promote its causes on a very limited budget. Constantly, it spreads itself too thin -- any one of the causes listed on the FSF campaign page would need tens of millions of dollars, let alone all of them together.

With almost no budget, the FSF's best chance to have its causes noticed is to receive free publicity. But the trouble is, talking about the benefits of its causes isn't going to receive the attention of most journalists. Except on rare occasions when a major piece of software like Java announces the release of its code, explanations of why free software is beneficial aren't going to be covered. Free software in the abstract is going to be rejected as a news topic most of the time on the grounds that it isn't newsworthy, especially since many readers remain unaware of it.

However, a statement from any source about a popular piece of technology like Android or the Apples app store just might get picked up, because an attack is always news. And in the case of free software, let's face it: there is always much more to attack than to praise. While free software may have an important niche in computer technology today, it's still only a niche. It's not mainstream.

Under these circumstances, an attack is the FSF's best chance to publicize its beliefs and causes. And if its explanations about free software sound repetitive to those of us within the free and open source software community -- well, we aren't the target audience. The FSF is simply publicizing its causes the best it can given its limited resources.

A double-bind for the audience

Since they work within the computer press, the pundits who complain about the FSF's approach probably have some awareness of the basic facts of getting publicity. So why do they hold the FSF to impossible standards, on the one hand suggesting that the FSF practice advocacy and on the other hand finding only techniques that make for ineffective advocacy acceptable?

As double-bind theory suggests, such impossible demands are not just about the issues being discussed. Rather, they are an attempt at coercion and control -- not of the FSF, of course, but of readers.

Reading Proffitt's discussions of the FSF, I can't help getting the impression that he doesn't like the FSF very much (Note: in literary circles, comments like this are known as understatement). The headline alone, describing Stallman's Android comments as "more partisanship" suggests that, although Proffitt may not be responsible for that.

But he is responsible for starting with the sarcastic comment that, "Richard Stallman took time out of his busy schedule to answer the burning question of whether Android is free software" and for asides like Stallman is "hell-bent on making sure everyone knows right down to their genetic code that Android is not free software." To my ear, this is not the language of anyone who is remotely interested in being fair or helpful.

Judging from his comments, the main contention between Proffitt and the FSF is that he identifies as an open source rather than a free software advocate. Picking up on Stallman's over-simplified attack on open source, Proffitt responds in kind.

He cannot, of course, control what the FSF does. But by framing the FSF and its actions within the structure of a double-bind, he can skew perception of the FSF so that it is discredited in reader's minds no matter what it does. If the FSF continues to look for publicity in the way it has always done, then it is too negative and should be ignored. But if it restricts itself to happy news, then it becomes ineffectual. Either way, the FSF becomes less influential.

Much the same analysis holds true for any of the pundits' attacks on the FSF -- although how aware any of them are of what they are doing is uncertain, and probably varies. But the message I take away from these attacks is not that the FSF can be faulted, but merely that the writers dislike the FSF.

Like any organization -- especially one that has lasted over twenty-five years -- the FSF can always do with some healthy criticism. But I think that we can do better than petty expressions of petulance.

Comments