diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html | 154 |
1 files changed, 154 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a12352d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +<!-- 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> + |