path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_41.html

<!-- 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="Avoiding-Ruinous-Compromises">
 </a>
 <h1 class="chapter">
  41. Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
 </h1>
 <a name="index-GNU-_0028see-also-both-software-and-GNU_0029-9">
 </a>
 <a name="index-FSF_002c-how-you-can-help-4">
 </a>
 <a name="index-GNU_002c-how-you-can-help">
 </a>
 <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-donate-2">
 </a>
 <a name="index-compromises_002c-avoiding-ruinous">
 </a>
 <p>
  The free software movement aims for a social change: to make
all software free so that all software users are free and can be part
of a community of cooperation. Every nonfree program gives its
developer unjust power over the users. Our goal is to put an end to
that injustice.
 </p>
 <p>
  The road to freedom is a long road. It will take many steps and many
years to reach a world in which it is normal for software users to
have freedom. Some of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice.
Some of them become easier if we make compromises with people that
have different goals.
 </p>
 <a name="index-GPL_002c-patent_002dprovisions-compromise">
 </a>
 <a name="index-compromises_002c-GPL-patent-provisions">
 </a>
 <p>
  Thus, the Free Software Foundation makes compromises—even major ones. For instance, we made
compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of the GNU General
Public License (GNU GPL) so that major companies would contribute
to and distribute GPLv3-covered software and thus bring some patents
under the effect of these provisions.
 </p>
 <a name="index-LGPL_002c-as-compromise">
 </a>
 <a name="index-compromises_002c-LGPL-and">
 </a>
 <a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-LGPL-and-3">
 </a>
 <p>
  The Lesser GPL’s purpose is a compromise: we use it on certain chosen
free libraries to permit their use in nonfree programs because we
think that legally prohibiting this would only drive developers to
proprietary libraries instead. We accept and install code in
  <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-programs-_0028see-also-software_0029-2">
  </a>
  GNU
programs to make them work together with common nonfree programs, and
we document and publicize this in ways that encourage users of the
latter to install the former, but not vice versa. We support specific
campaigns we agree with, even when we don’t fully agree with the
groups behind them.
 </p>
 <p>
  But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
community are willing to make them. For instance,
we endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions that have policies not to
include nonfree software or lead users to install it. To endorse
nonfree distributions would be a ruinous compromise.
 </p>
 <p>
  Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the
long term. That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the
level of actions.
 </p>
 <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-consumer-values-v_002e">
 </a>
 <p>
  At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce
the premises we seek to change. Our goal is a world in which software
users are free, but as yet most computer users do not even recognize
freedom as an issue. They have taken up “consumer” values, which
means they judge any program only on practical characteristics such as
price and convenience.
 </p>
 <a name="index-Carnegie_002c-Dale">
 </a>
 <p>
  Dale Carnegie’s classic self-help book,
  <cite>
   How to Win Friends and
Influence People,
  </cite>
  advises that the most effective way to
persuade someone to do something is to present arguments that appeal
to his values. There are ways we can appeal to the consumer values
typical in our society. For instance, free software obtained gratis
can save the user money. Many free programs are convenient and
reliable, too. Citing those practical benefits has succeeded in
persuading many users to adopt various free programs, some of which
are now quite successful.
 </p>
 <a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-consumer-values-and">
 </a>
 <p>
  If getting more people to use some free programs is as far as you
aim to go, you might decide to keep quiet about the concept of
freedom, and focus only on the practical advantages that make sense
in terms of consumer values. That’s what the term “open
source” and its associated rhetoric do.
 </p>
 <p>
  That approach can get us only part way to the goal of freedom. People
who use free software only because it is convenient will stick with it
only as long as it is convenient. And they will see no reason not to
use convenient proprietary programs along with it.
 </p>
 <p>
  The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That’s why we
do not support open source.
 </p>
 <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-6">
 </a>
 <p>
  To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do
more than get people to use some free software. We need to spread the
idea of judging software (and other things) on “citizen
values,” based on whether it respects users’ freedom and
community, not just in terms of convenience. Then people will not
fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive,
convenient feature.
 </p>
 <p>
  To promote citizen values, we have to talk about them and show how
they are the basis of our actions. We must reject the Dale Carnegie
compromise that would influence their actions by endorsing their
consumer values.
  <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-consumer-values-v_002e-1">
  </a>
 </p>
 <p>
  This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all—we can
and we do. It becomes a problem only when the practical advantage steals
the scene and pushes freedom into the background. Therefore,
when we cite the practical advantages of free software, we reiterate
frequently that those are just
  <em>
   additional, secondary
  </em>
  reasons
to prefer it.
 </p>
 <p>
  It’s not enough to make our words accord with our ideals; our
actions have to accord with them too. So we must also avoid
compromises that involve doing or legitimizing the things we aim to
stamp out.
 </p>
 <p>
  For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
GNU/Linux if you include some nonfree programs. This could mean a
cute nonfree application that will catch some user’s eye, or a nonfree
programming platform such as
  <a name="index-Java-5">
  </a>
  Java (formerly) or the Flash runtime
(still), or a nonfree device driver that enables support for certain
hardware models.
 </p>
 <p>
  These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal. If you
distribute nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will find
it hard to say, “Nonfree software is an injustice, a social problem,
and we must put an end to it.” And even if you do continue to say
those words, your actions will undermine them.
 </p>
 <p>
  The issue here is not whether people should be
  <em>
   able
  </em>
  or
  <em>
   allowed
  </em>
  to install nonfree software; a general-purpose system
enables and allows users to do whatever they wish. The issue is
whether we guide users towards nonfree software. What they do on
their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we
direct them towards, is ours. We must not direct the users towards
proprietary software as if it were a solution, because proprietary
software is the problem.
 </p>
 <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-distortion-of">
 </a>
 <p>
  A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can
distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you
have certain values, but your actions imply other, conflicting values,
you are likely to change your values or your actions so as to resolve
the contradiction. Thus, projects that argue only from practical
advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly
always shy away from even
  <em>
   suggesting
  </em>
  that nonfree software is
unethical. For their participants, as well as for the public, they
reinforce consumer values. We must reject these compromises if we
wish to keep our values straight.
 </p>
 <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-uphold-citizen-values-publicly">
 </a>
 <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-beware-of-ruinous-compromises">
 </a>
 <a name="index-FSF_002c-resources">
 </a>
 <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-publicly-upholding">
 </a>
 <p>
  If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal of
freedom, look at the FSF’s resources area. It lists hardware and
machine configurations that work with free software, totally free
GNU/Linux distros to install, and thousands of free software packages
that work in a 100 percent free software environment. If you want to
help the community stay on the road to freedom, one important way is
to publicly uphold citizen values. When people are discussing what is
good or bad, or what to do, cite the values of freedom and community
and argue from them.
 </p>
 <p>
  A road that lets you go faster is no improvement if it leads to the
wrong place. Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal,
but beware of compromises that lead away from the goal.
  <a name="index-compromises_002c-avoiding-ruinous-1">
  </a>
 </p>
 <hr size="2"/>