summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html
blob: 57bc7b22c7569e0af415c036a4c98608ea369711 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-nonfree" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Thank You, Larry McVoy
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/mcvoy.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Thank You, Larry McVoy</h2>

<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>

<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>

<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, &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not
&lsquo;free beer&rsquo;&rdquo; 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>

<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&mdash;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 
<abbr title="Basic Input/Output System">BIOS</abbr>: some of those
projects face large obstacles&mdash;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.
</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, &ldquo;We'll switch to a free program when you develop a
better one.&rdquo; This was an indirect way of saying, &ldquo;We made
the mess, but we won't clean it up.&rdquo;
</p>

<p>
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.
</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>


<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.
</p>
</div>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

        <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright &copy; 2005, 2021 Richard Stallman</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/09/19 16:26:24 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>