Re:RMS on Hacking and the Graphing Calculator (Score 1)

Ron Avitzur, in response to my plea, said that he supports the open source philosophy. Perhaps that explains the disagreement between us, since I certainly don't. That philosophy was formulated as a rejection of the deepest values of the free software movement in which I am an activist.

His use of the term "open source" therefore suggests a deep miscommunication. My comment pointed out that the developers had an opportunity to make the Graphing Calculator *free software*--that is, to release it in a way that respects the user's freedom to change and redistribute it. His response doesn't connect at all with this.

I do not speak for the advocates of open source, but their philosophy emphasizes the benefits of a development model which, they say, tends to produce technically better software. This emphasizes strictly practical values such as powerful and reliable software, and so does Avitzur's response. But none of that has much to do with the importance of free software. Free software is not about making software technically better. It is about respecting other people's freedom.

The Graphical Calculator is proprietary software. Users don't have the freedom to redistribute it, or study it, or change it. Its developers invite us to disregard this and think about how nice it is to use. But that's no good without freedom.

High school students who use the program may learn a good lesson about math, but they can't learn from it about programming, and it teaches a bad lesson about ethics: "Don't help your neighbor" and "`Your' copy isn't really yours". When a school uses non-free software, it teaches the students to be bad neighbors when they graduate. If Graphical Calculator were free software, it would teach good lessons in all three areas.

People who value the freedom to cooperate can avoid the Graphing Calculator just as they avoid Windows and MacOS. So if we want these capabilities, the only way we can have them (and not cede our freedom) is if we develop another program, a free program, to do the same job.

But that won't be be necessary if the Graphing Calculator itself is liberated. Could that happen? If the company has not been ambushed by the VC, it should be possible.

Would the company be able to keep operating? Economic issues are secondary when freedom is at stake, but I can understand Avitzur's interest in the question. I think he was too quick to conclude that the revenue base would disappear if the Graphing Calculator were free. It's possible that Apple would pay for the continued support of the program. (Apple already funds the support of some free software for its system.)

Would the results be good? I have doubts about the claim that the free software community has never produced a good graphical interface, since others say new users learn GNU/Linux with GNOME (the GNU desktop) faster than they learn Windows. But since I have not judged these questions myself, I will simply point out that the user interface of Graphing Calculator would not be any less good if it were released under a different license.

We will surely develop a free replacement by and by. We will do it for freedom, just as we replaced Unix, even if it takes years. But this redundant effort won't be necessary if Graphing Calculator is free.