I imagine a number of situations:
* Suppose I'm unemployed and dedicated to only using free software - I'm offered a job where I'll have to use Windows and Microsoft Word. If I refuse the job because of software freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
* I'm an unemployed programmer and get offered at job where I have to *write* proprietary software - I refuse because I won't participate in taking users' freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
* I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
... etc.
I think the ideal must be for the lack of software freedom to *always* be accepted as a valid reason to refuse a given piece of software, but pragmatically, it may not always be possible (especially, many people like to have jobs and may prioritize that above not using/writing proprietry software).
On 09/22/2017 07:12 AM, Carsten Agger wrote:
I imagine a number of situations:
- Suppose I'm unemployed and dedicated to only using free software - I'm
offered a job where I'll have to use Windows and Microsoft Word. If I refuse the job because of software freedom, can I still claim unemployment benefit?
- I'm an unemployed programmer and get offered at job where I have to
*write* proprietary software - I refuse because I won't participate in taking users' freedom. Can I still claim unemployment benefit?
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I wasn't able to pay?
... etc.
Argh, sorry abt the typos, early morning :)
Hi Carsten,
I imagine a number of situations:
I don't think there's a universal answer for this. It's a choice individuals need to make, taking into consideration the consequences it leads to. It's not dissimilar to the situation described here:
http://news.psu.edu/story/388899/2016/01/25/academics/ask-ethicist-can-i-tur...
The ethicist answering that question doesn't go into much detail but I believe the conclusion is a reasonable one:
"If you decline the assignment, you will need to accept any career consequences that you face, but you should have confidence because you stood up for what you believed in, and likely, you will gain the respect of your peers for taking a stand. Your career will be long, and you may face similar decisions at times. Deciding what you believe in and what you are willing to compromise on early will allow you to live with integrity."
Those consequences can be dire and include the loss of unemployment benefits in countries not recognizing your moral beliefs as a reason to reject employments. But the question is not easy: you have also been trained, potentially hired, for a particular job, and the employer has, and likely should have, a significant power to direct the work you do for the benefit of the organisation. Even if this means using proprietary software.
But the risk you then face is that of risking your employment. If you're a midwife refusing to carry out abortions out of your moral beliefs, you can not, and should not, be allowed to work in public health care, as the employer must be able to direct you to carry out an abortion.
What is important to me though is the recognition that there are highly individual answers to this. No one should be able to fault someone else for not following the same moral compass as someone else.
Jonas Öberg Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
Hi Jonas,
Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org writes:
No one should be able to fault someone else for not following the same moral compass as someone else.
You are talking about this specific issue though, aren't you?
Happy hacking! Florian
Am 22.09.2017 um 07:12 schrieb Carsten Agger: ...
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
This sort of thing is becoming more and more evident and it angers me no end. The problem is that there are almost no true politically controlled public-service organisations any more like there used to be, they are at best now publicly owned, but managed like private companies.
Therefore they do what they want and are under no legal obligation to serve the public. Most countries have in this way privatized their Post Offices including Girobanks, telephone companies, power and water utilities, radio and TV stations.
I expect that this sort of thing will become the norm in this increasingly neoliberal world, as in this aspect even social democrats and greens follow the mainstream, and I guess there is nothing we can do about it except vote extreme left, (or maybe some cases extreme right), or if available the Pirate Party. And of course COMPLAIN COMPLAIN COMPLAIN! Or drop out!
Regards, Theo
I would go for the following:
For the job, if the job *doesn't* require adapting or making a software (probably a non-free one), I would accept it, would work for some time, then slowly spread the free/libre software philosophy in the workplace (I would do so through civilized conversations and formal process). If some outsider asks what you're doing there: tell that, besides being employed to do what you're doing there, you're also responsible for convincing the organization to use, adapt, require and provide free/libre software --- in case the organization does all these things, but with non-free software --- and also tell that this is somewhat slow process which also deals with people's biased mindsets (which is true). If you get fired and people ask why, tell them that the organization failed to do what was suggested and that their negligence made the collaboration impossible.
Before the process of making the suggestion to the organization, it's a good idea to conduct research on what are their needs in regards to the software functionalities ([1][9]). And if some free/libre software lacks such, help this software by either hiring someone to make it that way and upstream changes, or also do it yourself --- if you do know how to. This is why the money you get from the job is important. However, it must be noted that I said "functionalities", so this doesn't involve asking the organization "which license is preferred?", because they'll probably make biased arguments towards permissive/lax/non-copyleft (e.g.: "MIT" (Expat or X11?), BSDs), weak copyleft (e.g.: GNU LGPL) or out-of-date strong copyleft licenses (e.g.: any GNU AGPL/GPL that isn't equal to "3+"/"version 3 'or later'"). We must get GNU AGPL 3+ ("3 'or later'") in all the things now, both to avoid SaaSS and digital handcuffs, besides individually-held copyright assignments and community-oriented copyleft enforcement ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]). ;)
At least in hostile environments, it's best to start aiming for 1% of free/libre software there, than aim immediatelly high (100%) ([1]).
As for jobs where you would be paid to make non-free software or adapt some software in order to make a non-free one --- these two also include webpages that have JavaScript code, because this one is *client-side*, for more information see the GNU LibreJS ([10]) project and FSF's FreeJS campaign ([11]) ---, in the moment of signing the employement contract --- or if not "sigining": accepting it verbally ---, make use of the ContractPatch ([12]) *before* accepting/signing the contract. While you have the unsigned contract on your hands, consider consulting a lawyer --- paid or /pro bono/ --- and also making meetings involving the lawyer and employer to reduce the gap in bargaining power ([1]). If the employer denies, refuse the contract.
In both cases (direct software development and not), look out for contract terminology such as "ownership", "invention", "copyright", "intelectual property", "confidentiality", "conflict of interest" ([1]).
As for what programs are used during work, you can talk to the cowerks or direct supervisors to get the real information on whether any software is allowed, rather than the head CTO ([1]). Formal culture is different from informal. Besides, if the organization has the "Bring Your Own Devices" policy, then you can argue that in the same way that the current employees are able to bring their own non-free software and "feel satisfied", then the employer shouldn't discriminate against you bringing free/libre software to make your work ([1]).
About the requirement to use non-free software in order to pay for parking cars, perhaps writing free/libre software replacement for this is another good use of the money one gets from the jobs. It's also possible to take public transportation or even asking someone who also goes in the same direction as you to take you there --- or to some part of the path. I don't know if the city were you live requires the same payment for parking bicycles, but you could also think of the possibility of using these, and also of using skateboards and roller skates, instead of the polluting and space-consuming ones (e.g.: cars, motorcycles, trucks, SUVs).
Finally, discrimination against us free/libre software activists seem to be common nowadays, including here in Brazil, Latin America. I wonder if there is a formal organization with which we can talk to and say "hey! we exist, and most employers don't seem to care"? ;)
[1] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/advocate-for-yourself-at-work-use-more-free-software-and-keep-contributing-to-the-community/ (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[2] https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2015-01-15_Bradley-Kuhn_Future-of-Copyleft_LCA-2015.webm (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[3] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/copyleft-for-the-next-decade-a-comprehensive-plan/ (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[4] https://video.fosdem.org/2017/Janson/copyleft_defense.vp8.webm (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[5] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[6] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/companies-free-software-and-you-ae2f/ (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[7] http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/102/207 (CC BY 4.0).
[8] http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/sflc2016/1330-foss-auto-future.webm (CC BY-SA 3.0).
[9] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-free-software-movement-in-the-age-of-trump/ (CC BY-SA 4.0).
[11] https://fsf.org/campaigns/campaigns-summaries#freejs.
[12] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/?tag=ContractPatch.
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
I imagine a number of situations:
- Suppose I'm unemployed and dedicated to only using free software - I'm
offered a job where I'll have to use Windows and Microsoft Word. If I refuse the job because of software freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
- I'm an unemployed programmer and get offered at job where I have to
*write* proprietary software - I refuse because I won't participate in taking users' freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
... etc.
I think the ideal must be for the lack of software freedom to *always* be accepted as a valid reason to refuse a given piece of software, but pragmatically, it may not always be possible (especially, many people like to have jobs and may prioritize that above not using/writing proprietry software).
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Carsten,
Thank you for your email. Those are some interesting questions, even if the situations may not arise quite like that in reality because those are usually jobs available that don't pay well and require little formal training. So the unemployment office would eventually resort to offering you one of those. I will answer in more detail below because I still think it is a good debate to have because it helps us flesh out the details of our philosophical position.
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
- Suppose I'm unemployed and dedicated to only using free software - I'm
offered a job where I'll have to use Windows and Microsoft Word. If I refuse the job because of software freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
I am not sure it would be necessary to refuse that kind of job. I wouldn't want to have a job like that, but I am not sure that taking it would be detrimental to software freedom as a whole. Perhaps setting a bad example by using non-free software may hurt our movement and if you use non-free formats to communicate with other people. Your own software freedom may or may not be affected. There are plenty of companies out there that use Free Software on their employees computers, but don't let them change even the configuration because it is controlled centrally. In those cases, there is no practical difference between Free Software and proprietary software. As I said, I still wouldn't like it though.
- I'm an unemployed programmer and get offered at job where I have to
*write* proprietary software - I refuse because I won't participate in taking users' freedom. Can I still be claim unemployment benefit?
I think the question of getting benefits comes down to the same as the first question: Is there another job available for you and will the government accept your reason for refusing the job? I think the first one is usually true, but what if this job programming non-free software is the only job in the world? Then you would be in trouble most likely. Perhaps you could treat your prinicples as a religious belief and that might help in certain countries (probably not in Germany) or you could treat your principles as a mental health issue. Other than that, I don't think you could refuse the job.
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
No, you get a fine because you have the choice of parking elsewhere. The situation is essentially the same for people without a smartphone. If there is an alternative solution for them (pay by phone call or text message), then you could use that as well, but if there isn't both situations pose the same problem.
If it is a private company that uses those apps, then I see no issue at all. If it is the government, then I would say the government should generally not force its citicens to use non-free software.
Happy hacking! Florian
Hi,
So the unemployment office would eventually resort to offering you one of those
I think it's important to differentiate between on the one hand the ethical question, and on the other hand the practical question of how unemployment benefits would vary.
The latter would be different between countries, and individuals (some may have additional unemployment benefits privately, through their unions or similar).
So I'm not sure how useful it is to compare :-) Jonas Öberg Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
On 22/09/17 21:24, Jonas Oberg wrote:
Hi,
So the unemployment office would eventually resort to offering you one of those
I think it's important to differentiate between on the one hand the ethical question, and on the other hand the practical question of how unemployment benefits would vary.
The latter would be different between countries, and individuals (some may have additional unemployment benefits privately, through their unions or similar).
So I'm not sure how useful it is to compare :-) Jonas Öberg Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
I think one of the points that is made here, is that change comes from within, sure you can apply for a job where the company is using non-free software. Once in you can suggest change and ideas. A new tool chain or how they can benefit from releasing software under a gpl or similar license, but still make money from support and with help from the fsfe cite some good examples of who has made a success from doing that.
It could be that the reason there is no Linux version is that there is no one to help develop it, which you could end up as project lead.
Paul
Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Friday 22. September 2017 15.57.26 Florian Snow wrote:
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
No, you get a fine because you have the choice of parking elsewhere.
If Copenhagen is like other cities, the opportunities for parking elsewhere may be very limited. In Oslo, I either *don't* want to know or I would *really* like to know (depending on how much I feel like looking closely at some potentially corrupt dealings) how the parking situation got to be some kind of cartel where supposedly "managed" parking is outrageously expensive and where many people consequently have to play the automotive equivalent of musical chairs to hunt down the limited number of available, free, on-street spaces that are the only real long-term parking option for many people.
The situation is essentially the same for people without a smartphone. If there is an alternative solution for them (pay by phone call or text message), then you could use that as well, but if there isn't both situations pose the same problem.
It is a question of accessibility in a broad sense. If people can interact with the payment mechanisms using public infrastructure then there is no problem. However, "apps" are the modern form of the kind of private networks that various corporations wanted to cultivate before the general Internet became popular. It would be like someone in the 1990s saying that you could only park if you had either a Compuserve account or were an eager early adopter of Apple's eWorld (or whatever it was called).
So these parking operators are forcing you to do business with specific companies. This is also why people should not be forced to use proprietary software, especially when interacting with public services.
If it is a private company that uses those apps, then I see no issue at all. If it is the government, then I would say the government should generally not force its citicens to use non-free software.
One colossal problem is that municipalities outsource services to private companies, some even structuring their *own* operations using a network of companies that take on different forms, potentially to seek exemptions from public obligations. I personally believe that companies should, in any case, be obliged to operate using standards-based, open, public infrastructure.
Paul
On 09/28/2017 05:05 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
On Friday 22. September 2017 15.57.26 Florian Snow wrote:
Carsten Agger agger@modspil.dk writes:
- I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by
downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to pay an eventual fine on the grounds that I couldn't pay?
No, you get a fine because you have the choice of parking elsewhere.
If Copenhagen is like other cities, the opportunities for parking elsewhere may be very limited. In Oslo, I either *don't* want to know or I would *really* like to know (depending on how much I feel like looking closely at some potentially corrupt dealings) how the parking situation got to be some kind of cartel where supposedly "managed" parking is outrageously expensive and where many people consequently have to play the automotive equivalent of musical chairs to hunt down the limited number of available, free, on-street spaces that are the only real long-term parking option for many people.
In Copenhagen, it used to be so that ouside of Jagtvej/Falkonér Allé, parking was free.
It's now changed to payment-only nearly everywhere in the city proper. This means that free parking is only available approaching the suburbs.
Now, I wouldn't have a big problem with that - if only they had a good old-fashioned meter that will accept coins. Or even a credit card.
But no, you *must* download a proprietary app, different ones for different parts of town, and I think there's two annoyances here:
* It's unacceptable that you're actually required to carry a smartphone (Android or iOS only) to do something completely commonplace
* It's unaceptable that you're required to install and use non-free software to do it..
It is a question of accessibility in a broad sense. If people can interact with the payment mechanisms using public infrastructure then there is no problem. However, "apps" are the modern form of the kind of private networks that various corporations wanted to cultivate before the general Internet became popular. It would be like someone in the 1990s saying that you could only park if you had either a Compuserve account or were an eager early adopter of Apple's eWorld (or whatever it was called).
Exactly. And even though requiring a smartphone is not strictly a software freedom issue (you might be able to use one with free software only), I do think it's a question of how we want our cities to be in the digital era. Do we want them to be system-friendly, requiring people to cater for the whims of software developers, or people friendly? "People friendly" would be to always allow common infrastructure to work without people carrying specific electronic gadgets.
On Thursday 28. September 2017 17.45.03 Carsten Agger wrote:
Now, I wouldn't have a big problem with that - if only they had a good old-fashioned meter that will accept coins. Or even a credit card.
Even some kind of SMS payment would be reasonably acceptable, but I guess the money is all in "apps" these days. (Actually, there is apparently money in sending SMS messages, but that's another story.)
But no, you *must* download a proprietary app, different ones for different parts of town, and I think there's two annoyances here:
- It's unacceptable that you're actually required to carry a smartphone
(Android or iOS only) to do something completely commonplace
- It's unaceptable that you're required to install and use non-free
software to do it..
The challenge for us is to figure out how to formulate such demands for fair, accessible and usable infrastructure. It has been a struggle to get the message across in other areas.
[...]
Exactly. And even though requiring a smartphone is not strictly a software freedom issue (you might be able to use one with free software only), I do think it's a question of how we want our cities to be in the digital era. Do we want them to be system-friendly, requiring people to cater for the whims of software developers, or people friendly? "People friendly" would be to always allow common infrastructure to work without people carrying specific electronic gadgets.
A friend of mine mentioned having her public transport ticket checked, which was in her case accessible via a specific "app" (of course), and when she told the inspectors that it was taking a while to come up on screen, the remark was made that maybe she should "get a newer phone". I can think of several responses, some very impolite, others wondering whether ticket inspectors make so much money that they can regard having the latest gadgets as some kind of civic duty.
One problem is that "apps" are tempting for people offering public services because the hardware involved is somewhat generic, meaning that municipalities (and their corporate entities) can avoid procuring things for specific purposes. In Oslo, they spent substantial amounts eliminating paper tickets with a smartcard system where (1) the readers didn't work, (2) the barriers couldn't be used because of fire regulations, (3) the roll-out was so slow that the first batch of cards had apparently degraded and were unreliable or unusable, (4) connectivity is required to validate tickets, and (5) they have to issue cards for short-term users like tourists or somehow make the "app" work for them.
With such a background of inept procurement (or demonstrably corrupt, in some cases in the public transport bureaucracy), having an "app" seems like the ultimate answer. But the correct answer is to provide people with the means to access the services, not to burden them with something that they think everyone should have anyway.
Paul
Yeah, SMS or even XMPP should do the trick. ;)
Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk writes:
Even some kind of SMS payment would be reasonably acceptable, but I guess the money is all in "apps" these days. (Actually, there is apparently money in sending SMS messages, but that's another story.)
The challenge for us is to figure out how to formulate such demands for fair, accessible and usable infrastructure. It has been a struggle to get the message across in other areas.
[...]
A friend of mine mentioned having her public transport ticket checked, which was in her case accessible via a specific "app" (of course), and when she told the inspectors that it was taking a while to come up on screen, the remark was made that maybe she should "get a newer phone". I can think of several responses, some very impolite, others wondering whether ticket inspectors make so much money that they can regard having the latest gadgets as some kind of civic duty.
One problem is that "apps" are tempting for people offering public services because the hardware involved is somewhat generic, meaning that municipalities (and their corporate entities) can avoid procuring things for specific purposes. In Oslo, they spent substantial amounts eliminating paper tickets with a smartcard system where (1) the readers didn't work, (2) the barriers couldn't be used because of fire regulations, (3) the roll-out was so slow that the first batch of cards had apparently degraded and were unreliable or unusable, (4) connectivity is required to validate tickets, and (5) they have to issue cards for short-term users like tourists or somehow make the "app" work for them.
With such a background of inept procurement (or demonstrably corrupt, in some cases in the public transport bureaucracy), having an "app" seems like the ultimate answer. But the correct answer is to provide people with the means to access the services, not to burden them with something that they think everyone should have anyway.
Paul _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion