diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html | 154 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 154 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html deleted file mode 100644 index a12352d..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,154 +0,0 @@ -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> - - - <a name="Thank-You_002c-Larry-McVoy"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 39. Thank You, Larry McVoy - </h1> - <a name="index-McVoy_002c-Larry"> - </a> - <a name="index-nonfree-software_002c-danger-of"> - </a> - <p> - For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He -recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community, -by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects -to use and promote his nonfree software. Soon, Linux development -will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that -nonfree software is a good thing if it’s convenient. - </p> - <p> - My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem -in the first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it -up. - </p> - <a name="index-BitKeeper"> - </a> - <p> - There are thousands of nonfree programs, and most merit no special -attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this -program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach: -inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to -attract other paying users. - </p> - <p> - McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers. -This did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged -not to part with their money, but they still had to part with their -freedom. They gave up the fundamental freedoms that define free -software: freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose, -freedom to study and change the source code as you wish, freedom to -make and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified -versions. - </p> - <p> - The free software movement has said, “Think of ‘free speech,’ not -‘free beer’” since 1990. McVoy said the opposite; he invited -developers to focus on the lack of monetary price, instead of on -freedom. A free software activist would dismiss this suggestion, but -those in our community who value technical advantage above freedom and -community were susceptible to it. - </p> - <a name="index-Linux-kernel-5"> - </a> - <a name="index-kernel_002c-Linux-5"> - </a> - <p> - McVoy’s great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux -development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It -is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, an essential -component, and users often mistake it for the entire system. As McVoy -surely planned, the use of his program in Linux development was -powerful publicity for it. - </p> - <p> - It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful political PR -campaign, telling the free software community that freedom-denying -software is acceptable as long as it’s convenient. If we had taken -that attitude towards Unix in 1984, where would we be today? Nowhere. -If we had accepted using Unix, instead of setting out to replace it, -nothing like the GNU/Linux system would exist. - </p> - <p> - Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they -did. I won’t argue with those reasons; they surely know what’s -convenient for them. But they did not count, or did not value, how -this would affect their freedom—or the rest of the community’s -efforts. - </p> - <p> - A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient -to use your computer in freedom; we need free software for everything -else, too. Free applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those -projects face large obstacles—the need to reverse engineer -formats or protocols or pressure companies to document them, or to -work around or face down patent threats, or to compete with a network -effect. Success will require firmness and determination. A better -kernel is desirable, to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening -the impetus to liberate the rest of the software world. - <a name="index-Linux-kernel-6"> - </a> - <a name="index-kernel_002c-Linux-6"> - </a> - </p> - <p> - When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with -distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software -if the company went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long -as the company remains in business. Linux developers responded by -saying, “We’ll switch to a free program when you develop a -better one.” This was an indirect way of saying, “We made -the mess, but we won’t clean it up.” - </p> - <p> - Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a nonfree -program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free -alternative. Finally - <a name="index-Tridgell_002c-Andrew"> - </a> - Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free -program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a nonfree -program. - </p> - <p> - McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home -and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by -free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other -software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as -long as it is nonfree, but they will no longer promote it, nor by -using it teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to -forget about that program. - </p> - <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-beware-of-nonfree-programs"> - </a> - <p> - We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Nonfree -programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don’t let them -get a place in your life. - <a name="index-McVoy_002c-Larry-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-nonfree-software_002c-danger-of-1"> - </a> - </p> - |