Standard interfaces

[Alex Nicolaou]

John Cowan wrote:

> Is Java code that binds such standard interfaces inherently unfree?

Yes, standard interfaces of any kind, and the software that implements
them, are inherently unfree.

I think this is clear if you browse the philosophy pages at
http://www.gnu.org/ but I could not find an appropriate quote. (A lot of
the language about the freedom to "change" software uses loaded
language, like "The freedom to improve the program"
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. It seems to me that
"improve" is a synonym for "change". The intent is unclear; it may be to
cast all changes to software in an inherently good light, or perhaps to
express the FSF's disapproval of patches that introduce bugs or virii
into programs. One could certainly have a lot of interesting discussion
about whether being able to change a standard interface is actually an
improvement or not.)

One of the things that used to frustrate me the most about GNU software
is how it deviates from standards; gcc accepts a superset of C, g++
accepts a language that it almost but not quite a superset of C++, and
so on. The GNU philosophy has always been to improve what needs
improving and see if the improvements catch on. This is a source of
recurring debate on several open-source mailing lists that I follow.
"Should we do this the standard way or the better way?" Interestingly,
many of these debates go in the direction of the standard simply to gain
more acceptance and use of the software whether it is a good direction
or not ... but the debate implies the freedom to deviate. The rule for
acceptance appears to be not the definition of the formal standard, but
the practical question about whether the software can achieve a de facto
standard which is so similar to the formal standard that it can be
called by the same name and consumed by the same individuals. This
produces software that is sufficiently close to the formal standard that
people are inclined to ignore the differences and the underlying issues
altogether. 

The fact that some people have sympathy for the de facto approach
towards standards can be seen in the support for Microsoft in the
Sun-Microsoft suit over Microsoft's implementation of the JVM: the
statement of many is that the "market should decide" and there is
support for the idea of simply seeing which standard survives as the
definition method of choice.

alex