summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html187
1 files changed, 187 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f7ab401
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>Is It Ever a Good Thing to Use a Nonfree Program?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Is It Ever a Good Thing to Use a Nonfree Program?</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom;
+the immediate wrong is directed at you.(<a href="#footnote">*</a>)</p>
+
+<p>If you recommend that others run the nonfree program,
+or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give
+up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead
+or encourage others to run nonfree software. Where the program uses
+a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own
+use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially
+important to avoid any use of these programs.</p>
+
+<p>But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and
+even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when
+the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the
+use of that very same nonfree software.</p>
+
+<p>In 1983 I decided to develop the GNU operating system, as a free
+replacement for Unix. The feasible way to do it was to write and test
+the components one by one on Unix. But was it legitimate to use Unix
+for this? And was it legitimate to ask others to use Unix for this,
+given that Unix was proprietary software? (Of course, if it had not
+been proprietary, it would not have required replacing.)</p>
+
+<p>The conclusion I reached was that using Unix to put an end to the use
+of Unix was legitimate for me to suggest to other developers.
+I likened it to participating in small ways
+in some evil activity, such as a criminal gang or a dishonest
+political campaign, in order to expose it and shut it down. While
+participating in the activity is wrong in itself, shutting it down
+excuses minor peripheral participation, comparable to merely using
+Unix. This argument would not justify being a ringleader, but I was
+only considering using Unix, not going to work for its development
+team.</p>
+
+<p>The job of replacing Unix was completed when the last essential
+component was replaced by Linux, the kernel started by Linus Torvalds
+in 1991. We still add to the GNU/Linux system, but that doesn't
+require using Unix, so it isn't a reason for using Unix&mdash;not any
+more. Thus, whenever you're using a nonfree program for this sort of
+reason, you should reconsider from time to time whether the need still
+exists.</p>
+
+<p>However, there are other nonfree programs we still need to replace,
+and the analogous question often arises. Should you run the nonfree
+driver for a peripheral to help you develop a free replacement driver?
+(More precisely, is it ethical for us to suggest that you do so?)
+Yes, by all means. Is it ok to run
+the <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">nonfree
+JavaScript</a> on a web site in order to file complaint asking the
+webmasters to free that JavaScript code, or make the site work without
+it? Definitely&mdash;but other than that, you should
+have <a href="/software/librejs/">LibreJS</a> block
+it for you.</p>
+
+<p>But this justification won't stretch any further. People that develop
+nonfree software, even software with malicious functionalities, often
+try to excuse this on the grounds that they fund some development of
+free software. However, a business that is basically wrong can't be
+legitimized by spending some of the profits on a worthy cause. For
+instance, some (not all) of the activities of the Gates Foundation are
+laudable, but they don't excuse Bill Gates's career, or Microsoft. If
+the business works directly against the worthy cause it tries to
+legitimize itself with, that is a self-contradiction and it undermines
+the cause.</p>
+
+<p>Even using a nonfree program to develop free software in general is
+better to avoid, and not suggest to others. For instance, we should
+not ask people to run Windows or MacOS in order to make free
+applications run on them. As developer of Emacs and GCC, I accepted
+changes to make them support nonfree systems such as VMS, Windows and
+MacOS. I had no reason to reject that code, even though people had
+run nonfree systems to write it. Their use of unjust systems was not
+at my request or suggestion; rather, they were already using them
+before starting to write changes for GNU. They also did the packaging
+of releases for those systems.</p>
+
+<p>The &ldquo;developing its own replacement&rdquo; exception is valid within its
+limits, and crucial for the progress of free software, but we must
+resist stretching it any further lest it turn into an all-purpose
+excuse for any profitable activity with nonfree software.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>Occasionally it is necessary to use and even upgrade a nonfree
+system on a machine in order to install a free system to replace it on
+that machine. This is not exactly the same issue, but the same
+arguments apply: it is legitimate to recommend running some nonfree
+software momentarily in order to remove it.</p>
+
+
+<hr />
+
+<p id="footnote">Footnote: Using the nonfree program can have
+unfortunate indirect effects, such as rewarding the perpetrator and
+encouraging more use of that program. This is a further reason to
+shun use of nonfree programs.</p>
+
+<p>Most proprietary programs come with an End User License Agreement
+that hardly anyone reads. Tucked away in it, in most cases, is an
+unethical commitment to behave like an uncooperative, bad neighbor.
+It claims you promised not to distribute copies to others, or even
+lend someone a copy.</p>
+
+<p>To carry out such a commitment is more wrong than to break it. No
+matter what legalistic arguments they might make, the developers can
+hardly claim their shady trick gives users a moral obligation to be
+uncooperative.</p>
+
+<p>However, we think that the truly moral path is to carefully reject
+such agreements.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/08/27 14:56:06 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>