diff options
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.html | 187 |
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—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—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 “developing its own replacement” 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 & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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"><webmasters@gnu.org></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"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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 © 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> |