There is no word for it. The free software movement needs a noun to describe those of us who reject oppressive technology such as non-free software. Our way of life needs recognition.
What happens when a banker says “you can download our app from the Google Playstore”? You have to respond with many words like “I do not run non-free software” or “I have no Google account and I do not trust proprietary closed-source software”. We are marginalized to some extent simply because our existence is unknown, unacknowledged, and perceived as a tiny scattered minority that can be disregarded.
“If you’re explaining, you’re losing” —Ronald Reagan¹
The idea is that simplicity is foundational to reaching a large audience. We do not want the burden and argumentative disadvantage of having to do a lot of explaining.
(① We do not need to accept Reaganomics or Ronald Reagan’s viewpoints to appreciate the merit of this particular quote.)
Works for vegans
Consider what happens when a vegan talks to a food server or clothing shop. There is no lengthy discussion about what the consumer can eat or wear. They simply say “I’m vegan”, or “can I see your vegan menu?” The server is not baffled. It’s instantly understood. Having a name for veganism is important to that cause. Vegans need a label because with that label comes recognition and understanding. The recognition comes with an implied need for accommodation that largely skips the step of questioning the merit of the position.
We are “libresarian”
I propose libresarian.
The suffix –arian changes an adjective into a personal noun, as in veterinarian. LibreS is short for libre (free as in freedom) software, a noun. But library is also already a noun from which “librarian” was derived.
Libre software (aka FOSS) is any software that provides users with these four essential freedoms.
The next time someone tells you “download our app”, say: “I’m libresarian; is your app FOSS?”
Countering harmful trends
20 years ago we could mostly avoid non-free software simply by boycotting COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software and their shrink-wrapped licenses. That was successful until recently. Today you can’t even buy some common household appliances like TVs, pressure cookers, dryers, etc, as all the new models are coming with embedded updatable insecure proprietary software that connects to a network. It comes with a huge attack surface and you are at the mercy of the original creator to counter vulnerabilities even when the hardware is out of warranty and the vendor has no business incentive to provide updates. If a libresarian wants to buy a high-end TV or dryer, they are already excluded from those markets and therefore marginalized.
Restaurant menus show a green leaf next to vegetarian or vegan options. Likewise, libresarians need to reach that level of accommodation with technology being offered.
Thwarting negotiation and compromise
If a food server/salesperson hears: “I prefer to avoid meat” pre-vegan days, they might try to sway you with “we have cruelty-free veal” or “our cows don’t fart“. But if you say “I’m vegan” now that it’s defined, this quickly conveys your position as non-negotiable. Libresarians need to establish the same non-negotiable status so we can make more progress.
“Will not” becomes “cannot”. A libresarian without a label suggests the possibility of a certain degree of flexibility that invites unwanted promotion of non-free software. Vegans are free to choose whether to say “I will not eat meat” or “I cannot eat meat”, depending on how they want to steer the conversation. If they choose to say “cannot”, they are effectively saying they adhere to (or are bound by) the rules of the label… the rules of being vegan. The existence of the libresarian label makes the use of “cannot” more credible and less contestable, thus giving us more control in the conversation (depending on the personality of the other party).
Libresarians come in different varieties
Just as there are different kinds of vegans (e.g. “ethical vegan”, “environmental vegan”, “dietary vegan”, etc), there are libresarians of different kinds:
Utilitarian libresarian
Some libresarians are simply concerned with whether they have the four essential freedoms in the end. They do not object to buying non-free software that may be pre-installed or bundled with hardware so long as they can remove it or replace it with free software. When they can operate free from non-free software, their goals are satisfied.
Deontological libresarian
Some libresarians are driven by deontological ethics, often attributed to the ethical theories of Immanuel Kant. Unlike utilitarian libresarians, they find it insufficient or misfocused to only have concern with the tools in their final deployed state. To a deontological libresarian it would be unethical to buy a device like a smartphone or TV where non-free software is a part of the device at acquisition time. Some may even find it ethically objectionable for non-free software to be used in the supply chain. The problem is that even if you can destroy the non-free software, you’ve still made a financial contribution to the oppressive technology. A deontological libresarian therefore does not even acquire non-free software as a gift for a non-libresarian because it would contribute to the tyranny of producing non-free software.
Consider why vegans refuse to consume animal products. The purpose is to boycott a harmful practice by an ethically dubious or unconcerned industry. The boycott is also the means to an ends, not directly the final goal in itself. If a vegan buys a steak, prepares it, and serves it to someone else, it would defeat the vegan cause. There would be an interesting debate among vegans on that. Also consider the scenario of eating meat found in a dumpster. Such a consumer contributes absolutely nothing to the exploitation of that animal, yet vegans will debate fiercely as to whether such a consumer can call themselves vegan. The only certain non-controversial common ground on that is to say one who eats meat from a dumpster is not a dietary vegan.
Strict libresarian
Often a device cannot run 100% free software without becoming wholly unusable when some critical components have no freedom-respecting replacement. A strict libresarian rejects the whole device in this case and makes no compromises. Or they produce the missing pieces so the device becomes fully liberated. Other (non-strict) libresarians are content with reaching a certain maximum degree of freedom in exchange for ability to function without having to write code or create a project and finance it.
Libresarian types are neither complete nor mutually exclusive
The libresarians defined above (utilitarian, deontological, and strict) are not intended to cover all viewpoints. They merely serve to capture some common viewpoints to disambiguate discussions and clarify goals efficiently. They are not mutually exclusive categories that one must fall into. There is overlap. A libresarian is of course free to act as a utilitarian libresarian in one situation and practice deontology in other situations. There is no innate contradiction in being both a utilitarian and deontologist simultaneously or in appreciating both viewpoints.
Mainstream libresarian lifestyle (“libresarianism”) and scope thereof
Libresarians conform to a restrictive lifestyle. Like vegans, their lifestyle is subtractive not additive. That is, they sacrifice options because the scope of action is no more and no less than a boycott. We define mainstream libresarianism in the absence of adjectives like: utilitarian, deontological, strict to be those who reject the use of non-free software in situations notwithstanding some exceptions. Specifically, if a device executes software that lacks any of the four essential freedoms and:
* it is updatable; OR
* it connects to a network that reaches multi-purpose devices (“MPD”; e.g. PCs, servers, and phones)
then a libresarian does not and will not own that device.
Exceptions— when non-free software is acceptable to libresarians
Many appliances run non-free software but the factory-installed software cannot be updated and the device also cannot connect to a network. A classic example is a microwave oven produced in the 1990s. Such an appliance is outside the scope of concern for libresarians in general. The benefit of the four freedoms is too insignificant in such cases to make the sacrifice worthwhile and it would only serve to shrink the libresarian community. But if the microwave oven connects to a LAN and ultimately to a smartphone, then a libresarian insists that the software on the microwave be free software. A TV from the 1980s would be neither updatable nor would it connect to a network with reach to MPDs, but it would often act on signals from an infrared remote control. One might argue that the remote control is “networked” to the TV. However, a 1980s remote control was a special-purpose device that only connected to the TV it was made for. So such an appliance is not generally objectionable to libresarians. Hence the distinction of MPDs from special-purpose devices.
Air gap esoterics and intent
Suppose a special-purpose controller connects to an appliance and the controller also connects to a network that reaches phones or PCs. The appliance is effectively reachable by a MPD via the controller. In this situation libresarians insist that the appliance exclusively connect to controllers that run free software and that it be deployed such that it’s unreachable to controllers running non-free software. This essentially means the appliance must be air-gapped with respect to all devices that run non-free software but it need not be air-gapped from devices that run free software.
For the purposes of this section, air gaps to MPD only apply to one hop. So a MPD can connect to a free software controller and ultimately reach an appliance which may be running non-updatable non-free software. Since the user is in control of the intermediate free software controller, this sufficiently empowers the user with control to treat signals from MPDs as they wish.
The libresarian definition is dynamic & evolves over time
As times change and progress is made, the goalposts will move to reflect what is important to the community. This has happened with veganism, which began as a diet but broadened in scope. As the vegan movement gains more ground, it will likely make revisions to the meaning of vegan. Proponents of digital freedom will also gain more ground. Perhaps one day we will be able to take the battle beyond the four freedoms and (for example) develop an expectation that source code and documentation be available in public channels rather than walled gardens. We might decide later that some fine-tuning is needed if (for example) non-free controllers or services are using encryption to circumvent FOSS components. But for the moment the libresarian stance is sufficiently ambitious.