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 --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html | 154 ------------------------ 1 file changed, 154 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_39.html') 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 @@ - - - - - -

- 39. Thank You, Larry McVoy -

- - - - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

- - - - -

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. -

-

- 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. - - - - -

-

- 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.” -

-

- Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a nonfree -program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free -alternative. Finally - - - Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free -program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a nonfree -program. -

-

- 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. -

- - -

- 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. - - - - -

- -- cgit v1.2.3