Mise à jour de la base de données, veuillez patienter...

Stop Trying to Make Social Networks Succeed

Lot is happening in the social network landscape with the demises of Twitter and Reddit, the apparition of Bluesky and Threads, the growing popularity of Mastodon. Many pundits are trying to guess which one will be successful and trying to explain why others will fail. Which completely misses the point.

Particular social networks will never "succeed". Nobody even agree on the definition of "success".

The problem is that we all see our little bubble and generalise what we observe as universal. We have a hard time understanding Mastodon ? Mastodon will never succeed, it will be for a niche. A few of our favourite web stars goes to Bluesky ? Bluesky is the future, everybody will be there.

That’s not how it works. That’s not how it ever worked.

Like every human endeavour, every social network is there for a limited duration and will be useful to a limited niche of people. That niche may grow to the point of being huge, like Facebook and WhatsApp. But, to this day, there are more people in the world without an account on Facebook than people with one. Every single social network is only representative of a minority. And the opposite would be terrifying when you think about it (which is exactly what Meta is trying to build).

Social networks are fluid. They come, they go. For commercial social networks, the success is defined by: "do they earn enough money to make investors happy ?" There’s no metric of success for non-commercial ones. They simply exist as long as at least two users are using them to communicate. Which is why criticisms like "Mastodon could never raise enough money" or "the Fediverse will never succeed" totally miss the point.

If you live in the same occidental bubble as me, you might have never heard of WeChat, QQ or VK. Those are immensely popular social networks. In China and Russia. WeChat alone is more or less the size of Instagram in terms of active users. The war in Ukraine also demonstrated that the most popular social network in that part of the world is Telegram. Which is twice as big as Twitter but, for whatever reason, is barely mentioned in my own circles. The lesson here is simple: you are living in a small niche. We all do. Your experience is not representative of anything but your own. And it’s fine.

There will never be one social network to rule them all. There should never be one social network to rule them all. In fact, tech-savvy people should fight to ensure that no social network ever "succeed".

Human lives in communities. We join them, we sometimes leave them. Social networks should only be an underlying infrastructure to support our communities. Social networks are not our communities. Social network dies. Communities migrate and flock to different destinations. Nothing ever replaced Google+, which was really popular in my own tech circle. Nothing will replace Twitter or Reddit. Some communities will find a new home on Mastodon or on Lemmy. Some will go elsewhere. That’s not a problem as long as you can have multiple accounts in different places. Something I’m sure you do. Communities can be split. Communities can be merged. People can be part of several communities and several platforms.

Silicon Valley venture capitalists are trying to convince us that, one day, a social network will succeed, will become universal. That it should grow. That social networks are our communities. That your community should grow to succeed.

This is a lie, a delusion. Our communities are worth a lot more than the underlying tool used at some point in time. By accepting the confusion, we are destroying our communities. We are selling them, we are transforming them into a simple commercial asset for the makers of the tool we are using, the tool which exploits us.

Stop trying to make social networks succeed, stop dreaming of a universal network. Instead, invest in your own communities. Help them make long-term, custom and sustainable solutions. Try to achieve small and local successes instead of pursuing an imaginary universal one. It will make you happier.

It will make all of us happier.

Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de Google européen ?

Et pourquoi c’est une bonne chose.

Google, pardon Alphabet, Facebook, pardon Meta, Twitter, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft. Tous ces géants font partie intégrante de notre quotidien. Tous ont la particularité d’être 100% américains.

La Chine n’est pas complètement en reste avec Alibaba, Tiktok et d’autres moins populaire chez nous, mais brassant des milliards d’utilisateurs.

Et en Europe ? Beaucoup moins, au grand dam des politiciens qui ont l’impression que le bonheur d’une population, et donc ses votes, se mesure au nombre de milliardaires qu’elle produit.

Pourtant, dans le domaine Internet, l’Europe est loin d’être ridicule. Elle est même primordiale.

Car si Internet, interconnexion entre les ordinateurs du monde entier, existait depuis la fin des années 60, aucun protocole ne permettait de trouver de l’information. Il fallait savoir exactement ce que l’on cherchait. Pour combler cette lacune, Gopher fut développé aux États-Unis tandis que le Web, combinaison du protocole HTTP et du langage HTML, était inventé par un citoyen britannique et un citoyen belge qui travaillaient dans un centre de recherche européen situé en Suisse. Mais, anecdote croustillante, leur bureau débordait la frontière et on peut dire aujourd’hui que le Web a été inventé en France. Difficile de faire plus européen comme invention ! On dirait la blague européenne officielle ! (Note: tout comme Pluton restera toujours une planète, les Britanniques resteront toujours européens. Le Brexit n’est qu’une anecdote historique que la jeune génération s’empressera, j’espère, de corriger).

• La Blague Européenne Officielle

Bien que populaire et toujours existant aujourd’hui, Gopher ne se développera jamais réellement comme le Web pour une sombre histoire de droits et de licence, tué dans l’œuf par la quête de succès économique immédiat.

Alors même que Robert Cailliau et Tim Berners-Lee inventaient le Web dans leur bureau du CERN, un étudiant finlandais issu de la minorité suédoise du pays concevait Linux et le rendait public. Pour le simple fait de s’amuser. Linux est aujourd’hui le système d’exploitation le plus populaire du monde. Il fait tourner les téléphones Android, les plus gros serveurs Web, les satellites dans l’espace, les ordinateurs des programmeurs, les montres connectées, les mini-ordinateurs. Il est partout. Linus Torvalds, son inventeur, n’est pas milliardaire et trouve ça très bien. Cela n’a jamais été son objectif.

Mastodon, l’alternative décentralisée à Twitter créée par un étudiant allemand ayant grandi en Russie, a le simple objectif de permettre aux utilisateurs des réseaux sociaux de se passer des monopoles industriels et de pouvoir échanger de manière saine, intime, sans se faire agresser ni se faire bombarder de pub. La pub et l’invasion de la vie privée, deux fléaux du Web moderne ! C’est d’ailleurs en réaction qu’a été créé le réseau Gemini, une alternative au Web conçue explicitement pour empêcher toute dérive commerciale et remettre l’humain au centre. Le réseau Gemini a été conçu et initié par un programmeur vivant en Finlande et souhaitant garder l’anonymat. Contrairement à beaucoup de projets logiciels, Gemini n’évolue plus à dessein. Le protocole est considéré comme terminé et n’importe qui peut désormais publier sur Gemini ou développer des logiciels l’utilisant en ayant la certitude qu’ils resteront compatibles tant qu’il y’aura des utilisateurs.

• Ma présentation de Mastodon (2017)
• Ma présentation de Gemini (2020)

On entend souvent que les Européens n’ont pas la culture du succès. Ces quelques exemples, et il y’en a bien d’autres, prouvent le contraire. Les Européens aiment le succès, mais pas au détriment du reste de la société. Un succès est perçu comme une œuvre pérenne, s’inscrivant dans la durée, bénéficiant à tous les citoyens, à toute la société voire à tout le genre humain.

Google, Microsoft, Facebook peuvent disparaître demain. Il est même presque certain que ces entreprises n’existent plus d’ici quarante ou cinquante ans. Ce serait même potentiellement une excellente chose. Mais pouvez-vous imaginer un monde sans le Web ? Un monde sans HTML ? Un monde sans Linux ? Ces inventions, initialement européennes, sont devenues des piliers de l’humanité, sont des technologies désormais indissociables de notre histoire.

La vision américaine du succès est souvent restreinte à la taille d’une entreprise ou la fortune de son fondateur. Mais pouvons-nous arrêter de croire que le succès est équivalent à la croissance ? Et si le succès se mesurait à l’utilité, à la pérennité ? Si nous commencions à valoriser les découvertes, les fondations technologiques léguées à l’humanité ? Si l’on prend le monde à la lueur de ces nouvelles métriques, si le succès n’est plus la mesure du nombre de portefeuilles vidés pour mettre le contenu dans le plus petit nombre de poches possible, alors l’Europe est incroyablement riche en succès.

Et peut-être est-ce une bonne chose de promouvoir ces succès, d’en être fier ?

Certains sont fiers de s’être enrichis en coupant le plus d’arbres possible. D’autres sont fiers d’avoir planté des arbres qui bénéficieront aux générations futures. Et si le véritable succès était de bonifier, d’entretenir et d’augmenter les communs au lieu d’en privatiser une partie ?

À nous de choisir les succès que nous voulons admirer. C’est en choisissant de qui nous chantons les louanges que nous décidons de la direction dès progrès futurs.

How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse)

The year is 2023. The whole Internet is under the control of the GAFAM empire. All of it? Well, not entirely. Because a few small villages are resisting the oppression. And some of those villages started to agregate, forming the "Fediverse".

With debates around Twitter and Reddit, the Fediverse started to gain fame and attention. People started to use it for real. The empire started to notice.

Capitalists Against Competition

As Peter Thiel, one of Facebook’s prominent investor, put it: "Competition is for losers." Yep, those pseudo "market is always right" people don’t want a market when they are in it. They want a monopoly. Since its inception, Facebook have been very careful to kill every competition. The easiest way of doing it being by buying companies that could, one day, become competitors. Instagram, WhatsApp to name a few, were bought only because their product attracted users and could cast a shadow on Facebook.

But the Fediverse cannot be bought. The Fediverse is an informal group of servers discussing through a protocol (ActivityPub). Those servers may even run different software (Mastodon is the most famous but you could also have Pleroma, Pixelfed, Peertube, WriteFreely, Lemmy and many others).

You cannot buy a decentralised network!

But there’s another way: make it irrelevant. That’s exactly what Google did with XMPP.

How Google joined the XMPP federation

At the end of the 20th century, instant messengers (IM) were all the rage. One of the first very successful ones was ICQ, quickly followed by MSN messenger. MSN Messenger was the Tiktok of the time: a world where teenagers could spend hours and days without adults.

As MSN was part of Microsoft, Google wanted to compete and offered Google Talk in 2005, including it in the Gmail interface. Remember that, at the time, there was no smartphone and very little web app. Applications had to be installed on the computer and Gmail web interface was groundbreaking. MSN was even at some point bundled with Microsoft Windows and it was really hard to remove it. Building Google chat with the Gmail web interface was a way to be even closer to the customers than a built-in software in the operating system.

While Google and Microsoft were fighting to achieve hegemony, free software geeks were trying to build decentralised instant messaging. Like email, XMPP was a federated protocol: multiple servers could talk together through a protocol and each user would connect to one particular server through a client. That user could then communicate with any user on any server using any client. Which is still how ActivityPub and thus the Fediverse work.

In 2006, Google talk became XMPP compatible. Google was seriously considering XMPP. In 2008, while I was at work, my phone rang. On the line, someone told me: "Hi, it’s Google and we want to hire you." I made several calls and it turned out that they found me through the XMPP-dev list and were looking for XMPP servers sysadmins.

So Google was really embracing the federation. How cool was that? It meant that, suddenly, every single Gmail user became an XMPP user. This could only be good for XMPP, right? I was ecstatic.

How Google killed XMPP

Of course, reality was a bit less shiny. First of all, despites collaborating to develop the XMPP standard, Google was doing its own closed implementation that nobody could review. It turns out they were not always respecting the protocol they were developing. They were not implementing everything. This forced XMPP development to be slowed down, to adapt. Nice new features were not implemented or not used in XMPP clients because they were not compatible with Google Talk (avatars took an awful long time to come to XMPP). Federation was sometimes broken: for hours or days, there would not be communications possible between Google and regular XMPP servers. The XMPP community became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers, posting irregularities and downtime (I did it several times, which is probably what prompted the job offer).

And because there were far more Google talk users than "true XMPP" users, there was little room for "not caring about Google talk users". Newcomers discovering XMPP and not being Google talk users themselves had very frustrating experience because most of their contact were Google Talk users. They thought they could communicate easily with them but it was basically a degraded version of what they had while using Google talk itself. A typical XMPP roster was mainly composed of Google Talk users with a few geeks.

In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore. And started a long quest to create a messenger, starting with Hangout (which was followed by Allo, Duo. I lost count after that).

As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault.

While XMPP still exist and is a very active community, it never recovered from this blow. Too high expectation with Google adoption led to a huge disappointment and a silent fall into oblivion. XMPP became niche. So niche that when group chats became all the rage (Slack, Discord), the free software community reinvented it (Matrix) to compete while group chats were already possible with XMPP. (Disclaimer: I’ve never studied the Matrix protocol so I have no idea how it technically compares with XMPP. I simply believe that it solves the same problem and compete in the same space as XMPP).

Would XMPP be different today if Google never joined it or was never considered as part of it? Nobody could say. But I’m convinced that it would have grown slower and, maybe, healthier. That it would be bigger and more important than it is today. That it would be the default decentralised communication platform. One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today.

It was not the first: the Microsoft Playbook

What Google did to XMPP was not new. In fact, in 1998, Microsoft engineer Vinod Vallopllil explicitly wrote a text titled "Blunting OSS attacks" where he suggested to "de-commoditize protocols & applications […]. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS project’s entry into the market."

Microsoft put that theory in practice with the release of Windows 2000 which offered support for the Kerberos security protocol. But that protocol was extended. The specifications of those extensions could be freely downloaded but required to accept a license which forbid you to implement those extensions. As soon as you clicked "OK", you could not work on any open source version of Kerberos. The goal was explicitly to kill any competing networking project such as Samba.

This anecdote was told Glyn Moody in his book "Rebel Code" and demonstrates that killing open source and decentralised projects are really conscious objectives. It never happens randomly and is never caused by bad luck.

Microsoft used a similar tactic to ensure dominance in the office market with Microsoft Office using proprietary formats (a file format could be seen as a protocol to exchange data). When alternatives (OpenOffice then LibreOffice) became good enough at opening doc/xls/ppt formats, Microsoft released a new format that they called "open and standardised". The format was, on purpose, very complicated (20.000 pages of specifications!) and, most importantly, wrong. Yes, some bugs were introduced in the specification meaning that a software implementing the full OOXML format would behave differently than Microsoft Office.

Those bugs, together with political lobbying, were one of the reasons that pushed the city of Munich to revert its Linux migration. So yes, the strategy works well. Today, docx, xlsx and pptx are still the norms because of that. Source: I was there, indirectly paid by the city of Munich to make LibreOffice OOXML’s rendering closer to Microsoft’s instead of following the specifications.

UPDATE:

• This tactic even has a Wikipedia page

Meta and the Fediverse

People who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Which is exactly what is happening with Meta and the Fediverse.

There are rumours that Meta would become "Fediverse compatible". You could follow people on Instagram from your Mastodon account.

I don’t know if those rumours have a grain of truth, if it is even possible for Meta to consider it. But there’s one thing my own experience with XMPP and OOXML taught me: if Meta joins the Fediverse, Meta will be the only one winning. In fact, reactions show that they are already winning: the Fediverse is split between blocking Meta or not. If that happens, this would mean a fragmented, frustrating two-tier fediverse with little appeal for newcomers.

UPDATE: Those rumours have been confirmed as at least one Mastodon admin, kev, from fosstodon.org, has been contacted to take part in an off-the-record meeting with Meta. He had the best possible reaction: he refused politely and, most importantly, published the email to be transparent with its users. Thanks kev!

• Mail from Meta to Kev, from Fosstodon, and reply

I know we all dream of having all our friends and family on the Fediverse so we can avoid proprietary networks completely. But the Fediverse is not looking for market dominance or profit. The Fediverse is not looking for growth. It is offering a place for freedom. People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine. They have the right to stay on proprietary platforms. We should not force them into the Fediverse. We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it.

By competing against Meta in the brainless growth-at-all-cost ideology, we are certain to lose. They are the master of that game. They are trying to bring everyone in their field, to make people compete against them using the weapons they are selling.

Fediverse can only win by keeping its ground, by speaking about freedom, morals, ethics, values. By starting open, non-commercial and non-spied discussions. By acknowledging that the goal is not to win. Not to embrace. The goal is to stay a tool. A tool dedicated to offer a place of freedom for connected human beings. Something that no commercial entity will ever offer.

• Picture by David Revoy
• Traduction en Français par Nicolas Vivant
• Traducción Española de Matii
• Deutsche Übersetzung von Janet und anderen
• Traduzione italiana di Nilocram

Le génocide du sac à dos

L’actualité nous semble parfois effroyable, innommable, inhumaine. L’horreur est-elle absolue ou n’est-elle qu’une question de point de vue ?

Dans le bunker étanche, les deux scientifiques contemplaient les écrans de contrôle, les yeux hagards. De longues trainées de sueurs dégoulinaient sur leur visage.

— C’est raté, dit la première.

— Ça ne peut pas ! Ce n’est pas possible ! Ce voyage dans le temps est la dernière chance de sauver l’humanité !

— Je te dis que c’est raté. Regarde les caméras de surveillance. Les robots tueurs se rapprochent. La planète continue à brûler. Rien n’a changé. Nous sommes les dernières survivantes.

La seconde secouait machinalement la tête, tapotait sur des voyants.

— Ce n’est pas possible. Ça ne pouvait pas manquer. La mission était pourtant simple. Le professeur tout bébé dans un landau dans une plaine de jeux. Nous avions même la localisation exacte et la date.

— Il y’avait plusieurs landaus.

— Les ordres étaient clairs. Les tuer tous. Le sort de la planète dépendait du fait que le Professeur ne puisse pas grandir et créer son armée de destruction. C’était immanquable.

Derrière les humaines, la porte s’ouvrit et les robots firent leur apparition, leur silhouette se détachant sur le paysage apocalyptique de la planète en train de se consumer.

— « Se rendre le 8 juin 2023 au Pâquier d’Annecy et détruire les organismes dans les landaus de la pleine de jeu. » C’était pourtant pas compliqué. Comment cela a-t-il pu foirer ?

— Malgré le conditionnement mental, il n’a pas pu, répliqua la première. Il a hésité une fraction de seconde.

— Tout ça à cause d’un type avec un sac à dos.

— À quoi tient le destin d’une planè…

Elles n’achevèrent pas et s’écroulèrent, mortes, au pied des terrifiants automates floqués du célèbre logo de l’entreprise d’intelligence artificielle fondée en 2052 par celui qui s’était fait appeler « le Professeur ».

We need more of Richard Stallman, not less

Disclaimer: I’m aware that Richard Stallman had some questionable or inadequate behaviours. I’m not defending those nor the man himself. I’m not defending blindly following that particular human (nor any particular human). I’m defending a philosophy, not the philosopher. I claim that his historical vision and his original ideas are still adequate today. Maybe more than ever.

The Free Software movement has been mostly killed by the corporate Open Source. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder, Richard Stallman (RMS), have been decried for the last twenty years, including by my 25-year-old self, as being outdated and inadequate.

• Drew DeVault’s FSF is dying
• Free Software is not enough by j3s
• Viznut asking if permacomputing should be the successor of Free Software
• Myself arguing for RMS replacement in 2006

I’ve spent the last 6 years teaching Free Software and Open Source at École Polytechnique de Louvain, being forced to investigate the subject and the history more than I anticipated in order to answer students’ questions. I’ve read many historical books on the subject, including RMS’s biography and many older writings.

And something struck me.

RMS was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not RMS or FSF. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen.

The solution has always been there: copyleft

In the early eighties, RMS realised that software was transformed from "a way to use a machine" to a product or a commodity. He foresaw that this would put an end to collective intelligence and to knowledge sharing. He also foresaw that if we were not the master of our software, we would quickly become the slave of the machines controlled by soulless corporations. He told us that story again and again.

Forty years later, we must admit he was prescient. Every word he said still rings true. Very few celebrated forward thinkers were as right as RMS. Yet, we don’t like his message. We don’t like how he tells it. We don’t like him. As politicians understood quickly, we care more about appearance and feel-good communication than about the truth or addressing the root cause.

RMS theorised the need for the "four freedoms of software".

- The right to use the software at your discretion

- The right to study the software

- The right to modify the software

- The right to share the software, including the modified version

How to guarantee those freedoms ? RMS invented copyleft. A solution he implemented in the GPL license. The idea of copyleft is that you cannot restrain the rights of the users. Copyleft is the equivalent of the famous « Il est interdit d’interdire » (it is forbidden to forbid).

In hindsight, the solution was and still is right.

Copyleft is a very deep concept. It is about creating and maintaining commons. Commons resources that everybody could access freely, resources that would be maintained by the community at large. Commons are frightening to capitalist businesses as, by essence, capitalist businesses try to privatise everything, to transform everything into a commodity. Commons are a non-commodity, a non-product.

Capitalist businesses were, obviously, against copyleft. And still are. Steve Ballmer famously called the GPL a "cancer". RMS was and still is pictured as a dangerous maniac, a fanatic propagating the cancer.

Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond tried to find a middle ground and launched the "Open Source" movement. Retrospectively, Open Source was a hack. It was originally seen as a simple rebranding of "Free Software", arguing that "free" could be understood as "without price or value" in English.

RMS quickly pointed, rightly, that the lack of "freedom" means that people will forget about the concept. Again, he was right. But everybody considered that "Free Software" and "Open Source" were the same because they both focused on the four freedoms. That RMS was nitpicking.

RMS biggest mistake

There was one weakness in RMS theory: copyleft was not part of the four freedoms he theorised. Business-compatible licenses like BSD/MIT or even public domain are "Free Software" because they respect the four freedoms.

But they can be privatised.

And that’s the whole point. For the last 30 years, businesses and proponents of Open Source, including Linus Torvalds, have been decrying the GPL because of the essential right of "doing business" aka "privatising the common".

They succeeded so much that the essential mission of the FSF to guarantee the common was seen as "useless" or, worse, "reactionary". What was the work of the FSF? The most important thing is that they proof-bombed the GPL against weaknesses found later. They literally patched vulnerabilities. First the GPLv3, to fight "Tivoisation" and then AGPL, to counteract proprietary online services running on free software but taking away freedom of users.

But all this work was ridiculed. Microsoft, through Github, Google and Apple pushed for MIT/BSD licensed software as the open source standard. This allowed them to use open source components within their proprietary closed products. They managed to make thousands of free software developers work freely for them. And they even received praise because, sometimes, they would hire one of those developers (like it was a "favour" to the community while it is simply business-wise to hire smart people working on critical components of your infrastructure instead of letting them work for free). The whole Google Summer of Code, for which I was a mentor multiple years, is just a cheap way to get unpaid volunteers mentor their future free or cheap workforce.

Our freedoms were taken away by proprietary software which is mostly coded by ourselves. For free. We spent our free time developing, debugging, testing software before handing them to corporations that we rever, hoping to maybe get a job offer or a small sponsorship from them. Without Non-copyleft Open Source, there would be no proprietary MacOS, OSX nor Android. There would be no Facebook, no Amazon. We created all the components of Frankenstein’s creature and handed them to the evil professor.

More commons

The sad state of computing today makes computer people angry. We see that young student are taught "computer" with Word and PowerPoint, that young hackers are mostly happy with rooting Android phones or blindly using the API of a trendy JS framework. That Linux distributions are only used by computer science students in virtualised containers. We live in the dystopia future RMS warned us about.

Which, paradoxically, means that RMS failed. He was a Cassandra. Intuitively, we think we should change him, we should replace the FSF, we should have new paradigms which are taking into account ecology and other ethical stances.

We don’t realise that the solution is there, in front of us for 40 years: copyleft.

Copyleft as in "Forbidding privatising the commons".

We need to rebuild the commons. When industries are polluting the atmosphere or the oceans, they are, in fact, privatising the commons ("considering a common good as their private trash"). When an industry receives millions in public subsidies then make a patent, that industry is privatising the common. When Google is putting the Linux kernel in a phone that cannot be modified easily, Google is privatising the common. Why do we need expensive electric cars? Because the automotive industry has been on a century-long mission to kill public transport or the sole idea of going on foot, to destroy the commons.

We need to defend our commons. Like RMS did 40 years ago. We don’t want to get rid of RMS, we need more of his core philosophy. We were brainwashed into thinking that he was an extremist just like we are brainwashed to think that taking care of the poor is socialist extremism. In lots of occidental countries, political positions seen as "centre" twenty years ago are now seen as "extreme left" because the left of twenty years ago was called extremist. RMS suffered the same fate and we should not fall for it.

Fighting back

What could I do? Well, the first little step I can do myself is to release every future software I develop under the AGPL license. To put my blog under a CC By-SA license. I encourage you to copyleft all the things!

We need a fifth rule. An obligation to maintain the common to prevent the software of being privatised. This is the fifth line that RMS grasped intuitively but, unfortunately for us, he forgot to put in his four freedoms theory. The world would probably be a very different place if he had written the five rules of software forty years ago.

But if the best time to do it was forty years ago, the second-best moment is right now. So here are

The four freedoms and one obligation of free software

- The right to use the software at your own discretion

- The right to study the software

- The right to modify the software

- The right to redistribute the software, including with modifications

- The obligation to keep those four rights, effectively keeping the software in the commons.

We need to realise that any software without that last obligation will, sooner or later, become an oppression tool against ourselves. And that maintaining the commons is not only about software. It’s about everything we are as a society and everything we are losing against individual greed. Ultimately, our planet is our only common resource. We should defend it from becoming a commodity.

Copyleft was considered a cancer. But a cancer to what? To the capitalist consumerism killing the planet? Then I will proudly side with the cancer.

• Picture of RMS by Frank Karlitschek
• Traducción en español per Victorhck