From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 176 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9665005 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ + + +The Free Software Community After 20 Years +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

The Free Software Community After 20 Years:
+With great but incomplete success, what now?

+ +

by Richard +Stallman

+ +

+It was 5 Jan 1984, twenty years ago today, that I quit my job at MIT +to begin developing a free software operating system, +GNU. While we have never +released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant +of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly +are not aware it is such. Free software does not mean +“gratis”; it means that users are free to run the program, +study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or +without changes, either gratis or for a fee.

+ +

+My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape +forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software. +I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that nonfree +software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give +others a way to escape.

+ +

+Non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits +cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source +code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it +might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. +Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else. To +prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.

+ +

+Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other +free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and +have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to “use +free software”. But what does it mean to “use free +software”? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, +or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to +lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our code? In other +words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with +the shallow goal of popularity?

+ +

+It's easy to get in the habit of overlooking this distinction, because +in many common situations it makes no difference. When you're trying +to convince a person to try a free program, or to install the +GNU/Linux operating system, +either goal would lead to the same practical conduct. However, in +other situations the two goals inspire very different actions.

+ +

+For instance, what should we say when the nonfree Invidious video +driver, the nonfree Prophecy database, or the nonfree Indonesia +language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs +on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this +“support” for our system, or should we regard this +nonfree program like any other—as an attractive nuisance, a +temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?

+ +

+If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free +software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free +programs some of the time, you might think those nonfree programs are +helpful contributions to that goal. It is hard to dispute the claim +that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular. If the +widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, +we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether +free or not.

+ +

+But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be +free while using a nonfree program. To free the citizens of +cyberspace, we have to replace those nonfree programs, not accept +them. They are not contributions to our community, they are +temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.

+ +

+There are two common motivations to develop a free program. One is +that there is no program to do the job. Unfortunately, accepting the +use of a nonfree program eliminates that motivation. The other is +the will to be free, which motivates people to write free replacements +for nonfree programs. In cases like these, that motive is the only +one that can do the job. Simply by using a new and unfinished free +replacement, before it technically compares with the nonfree model, +you can help encourage the free developers to persevere until it +becomes superior.

+ +

+Those nonfree programs are not trivial. Developing free replacements +for them will be a big job; it may take years. The work may need the +help of future hackers, young people today, people yet to be inspired +to join the work on free software. What can we do today to help +convince other people, in the future, to maintain the necessary +determination and persistence to finish this work?

+ +

+The most effective way to strengthen our community for the future is +to spread understanding of the value of freedom—to teach more +people to recognize the moral unacceptability of nonfree software. +People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential +defense.

+ +
+

Originally published on Newsforge.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3