summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html154
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>
-