The gap in the Free Software movement's leadership...

I had the opportunity to see Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation and writer of the GNU General Public License speak at the University of Missouri St. Louis (UMSL) last week. It was certainly interesting.

It's a shame that Stallman's personal politics are so far-left. His dedication to the ideals of Free Software are excellent, and he really does seem to support his cause for selfless reasons. I could have used a few less "the US Government is evil" suggestions in his speech, but other than that, the event was certainly worth attending.

After the lecture, there was a question & answer session, and I stood up to participate. I asked him "In a world in which the average computer user doesn't even know what an operating system is, how would you suggest informing the uneducated user about the importance of their freedom when it comes to software?"

His response: use terms and metaphors that everyday people are used to dealing with. He suggested that I liken Free Software to that of a recipe shared between friends: even if you don't know how to modify a software's source code (read: know how to follow a recipe and cook), you can still let someone else do the work for you (read: get someone else to prepare the meal), and the fact that you are free to distribute the software and source code (read: give the recipe and/or food to your friends), means that people everywhere have the opportunity to enjoy the product.

I enjoyed his answer, and I will certainly be using that example myself in the future. Unfortunately, while Stallman proved to be an excellent philosopher, he wasn't the best salesman. His lecture was clearly targeted toward those who already agree with his principles, and was unlikely to have changed anyone's minds who weren't already leaning his way.

While Richard Stallman is certainly someone to be admired (his work for Free Software is unsurpassed), I don't think he is likely to lead the Free Software movement to victory. His suggestions that proprietary software is unethical and evil, and that any device that does not contain Free Software should be avoided will be hard for many to accept. Even the most avid GNU/Linux fans likely use some proprietary software to get their work done. In his lecture, Stallman even mentioned that there are only three known GNU/Linux distributions that contain 100% Free Software. But while he recognizes that not all functionality can be found in Free products, his suggestion that people simply do without in the mean time is unacceptable.

The truth is, people don't want to hear "just do without until something better comes along." If a feature they are needing (or wanting) can't be found in Free Software, they will use proprietary software. This is certainly not a desirable thing, but it is a fact of life that is not likely to change regardless of Stallman's hopes. And this is the reason I don't think Stallman will be the one who leads the movement to victory: he is too inflexible. In a fight in which we must convince non-technical people to care about technical issues, we must adapt our tactics accordingly.

Unfortunately, Stallman's counterpart from the Open Source movement, Linus Torvalds, is equally inflexible. His suggestions that software should be developed to fit a technical superiority, rather than an ethical one is absurd. Torvalds sees no problem with oppressive technologies such as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), or Product Activation. He is only concerned with producing products he believes function better, and he sees open source licensing as a way to do so.

The truth is, there isn't any single leader that fights for Free Software ethics, but is also motivated to convince others to follow in a rational, logical manner. Stallman doesn't seem interested with trying to market Free Software on a practical level to the average user, or even the technical enthusiast. He believes in selling the idea of freedom, and freedom alone. While that is certainly noble, it is not necessarily the most practical way to win people over.

The Free Software movement has a gap in its leadership. Richard Stallman and his followers are more and sufficient to educate users on the importance of freedom. And Linus Torvalds and his crew are great at preaching the technical superiority of open source technology. Neither seem to make it their mission to directly reach the average computer user -- or even those who don't use computers at all.

What is needed is someone to assimilate the masses into the mindset of both freedom and technology by selling them on both the technical and ethical issues. Someone who can use the same tactics that proprietary software vendors have used for years -- but this time use them to bring about change.

It is my intention to fill that void. The time for planning and debate is over. It is time for action.