Kind Software

This post sprouts in part from a comment in my previous disclaim of support to FSFE, but it’s a standalone post, which is not related to my feelings towards FSFE (which I already covered elsewhere). It should also not be a surprise to long time followers, since I’m going to cover arguments that I have already covered, for better or worse, in the past.

I have not been very active as a Free Software developer in the past few years, for reasons I already spoke about, but that does not mean I stopped believing in the cause or turned away from it. At the same time, I have never been a fundamentalist, and so when people ask me about “Freedom 0”, I’m torn, as I don’t think I quite agree on what Freedom 0 consists of.

On the Free Software Foundation website, Freedom 0 is defined as

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

At the same time, a whole lot of fundamentalists seem to me to try their best to not allow the users to run the programs as they wish. We wouldn’t, otherwise, be having purity tests and crusade against closed-source components that users may want to actually use, and we wouldn’t have absurdist solutions for firmware, that involve showing binary blobs under the carpet, and just not letting the user ever update them.

The way in which I disagree with both formulation and interpretation of this statement, is that I think that software should, first of all, be usable for its intended purpose, and that software that isn’t… isn’t really worth discussing about.

In the case of Free Software, I think that, before any licensing and usage concern, we should be concerned about providing value to the users. As I said, not a novel idea for me. This means that software that that is built with the sole idea of showing Free Software supremacy, is not useful software for me to focus on. Operating systems, smart home solutions, hardware, … all of these fields need users to have long-term support, and those users will not be developers, or even contributors!

So with this in mind, I want to take a page out of the literal Susan Calman book, and talk about Kind Software, as an extension of Free Software. Kind Software is software that is meant for the user to use and to keep the user as its first priority. I know that a number of people would make this to be a perfect overlap and contrast, considering all Free Software as Kind Software, and all proprietary software as not Kind Software… but the truth is that it is significantly more nuanced than that.

Even keeping aside the amount of Free Software that is “dual-use” and that can be used by attackers just as much as defenders – and that might sometimes have a bit too much of a bias towards the attackers – you don’t need to look much further than the old joke about how “Unix is user friendly, it’s just very selective of who its friends are”. Kind software wouldn’t be selective — the user use-cases are paramount, any software that would be saying “You don’t do that with {software}, because it is against my philosophy” would by my definition not be Kind Software.

Although, obviously, this brings us back to the paradox of tolerance, which is why I don’t think I’d be able to lead a Kind Software movement, and why I don’t think that the solution to any of this has to do with licenses, or codes of ethics. After all, different people have different ideas of what is ethical and what isn’t, and sometimes you need to make a choice by yourself, without fighting an uphill battle so that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is labelled an enemy. (Though, if you think that nazis are okay people, you’re definitely not a friend of mine.)

What this tells me that I can define my own rules for what I consider “Kind Software”, but I doubt I can define them for the general case. And in my case, I have a mixture of Free Software and proprietary software in the list, because I would always select the tools that first get their job done, and second are flexible enough for people to adapt. Free Software makes the latter much easier, but too often is the case that the former is not the case, and the value of a software that can be easily modified, but doesn’t do what I need is… none.

There is more than that of course. I have ranted before about the ethical concerns with selling routers, and I’ve actually been vocal as a supporter for law requiring businesses to have their network equipment set up by a professional — although with a matching relaxation of the requirements to be considered a professional. So while I am a strong believer in the importance of OpenWRT I do think that trying to suggest it as a solution for general final users is unkind, at least for the moment.

On the other side of the room, Home Assistant to me looks like a great project, and a kind one to it. The way they handled the recent security issues (in January — pretty much just happened as I’m writing this) is definitely part of it: warned users wherever they could, and made sure to introduce safeties to make sure that further bugs in components that they don’t even support wouldn’t introduce this very same problem again. And most importantly, they are not there to tell you how to use your gadgets, they are there to integrate with whatever is possible to.

This is, by the way, the main part of the reason why I don’t like self-hosting solutions, and why I would categorically consider software needing to be self-hosted as unkind: it puts the burden of it not being abused on the users themselves, and unless their job is literally to look after hosted services, it’s unlikely that they will be doing a good job — and that’s without discussing the fact that they’d likely be using time that they meant to be spending on something else just to keep the system running.

And speaking of proprietary, yet kind, software — I have already spoken about Abbott’s LibreLink and the fact that my diabetes team at the hospital is able to observe my glucose levels remotely, in pretty much real-time. This is obviously a proprietary solution, and not a bug-free one at that, and I’m also upset they locked it in, but it is also a kind one: the various tools that don’t seem to care about the expiration dates, that think that they can provide a good answer without knowing the full extent of the algorithm involved, and that insist it’s okay to not wait for the science… well, they don’t sound kind to me: they not just allow access to personal data, which would be okay, but they present data that might not be right for people to take clinical decisions and… yeah that’s just scary to me.

Again, that’s a personal view on this. I know that some people are happy to try open-source medical device designs on themselves, or be part of multi-year studies for those. But I don’t think it’s kind to expect others to do the same.

Unfortunately, I don’t really have a good call to action here, except to tell Free Software developers to remember to be kind as well. And to think of the implications of the software they write. Sometimes, just because we’re able to throw something out there, doesn’t mean it’s the kind thing to do so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s