Re: referencing non-free software

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> The only reason I see stated is "Proprietary software is a social and
> ethical problem, and our aim is to put an end to that problem."  What
> I don't see explained is why hiding proprietary software from users is
> the right way to end it.

I don't think that not "recommend[ing], promot[ing], or grant[ing] 
legitimacy to the use of any non-free program" is hiding proprietary 
software. Proprietary programs don't go away because GNU programs don't 
legitimize their use. Your point also strikes me as remarkably one-sided 
and likely to benefit the proprietary programs the GNU Project encourages 
people to supplant with free software.

> I would think that the right way is to out-compete proprietary software
> on the merits (both technical and philosophical), so that users, having
> had a full opportunity to evaluate the merits (technical and
> philosophical) of the free and non-free programs for their task, choose
> the free ones.
Which merits one picks helps determine the outcome of the comparison. The 
GNU Project was founded to favor software freedom and has long argued that 
even buggy and less featureful free software is a better choice than 
powerful and reliable nonfree software because software freedom is more 
important. On a practical level, it's hard to argue against that 
perspective because software freedom allows one to make free programs less 
buggy, more reliable, or add more powerful features. But no amount of 
programming labor or technical skill will make a nonfree program free.

> What is the harm, exactly, of referencing non-free software, if the
> reference is accompanied by links to the FSF's arguments against using
> it?
Where is there a prohibition against GNU programs "referencing" nonfree 
software?

I see "A GNU program should not recommend, promote, or grant legitimacy to 
the use of any non-free program.". I also see that well known proprietary 
programs (such as a widely used nonfree operating system) can be mentioned 
and one can supply directions as to how to use the free program on said system.

I trust it's obvious how nonfree software harms the user and why an 
organization founded to supplying free software has no interest in 
recommending, promoting, or granting legitimacy to any nonfree software.

> By protectionism, I mean artificially protecting free software from
> competition by restricting knowledge of the alternatives, the way
> countries protect domestic industries by restricting imports.

I believe nonfree software will still exist no matter what the 
documentation for free software says. Any perceived competition is in the 
eye of the beholder.

Also, but somewhat relatedly, can we expect proprietors to recommend free 
software to their users? It would be useful to those users to learn that 
they don't have to put up with privacy violations, backdoors, and the rest 
of the malware users are not permitted to fix.

> "Look at any kind of website. How often do they discuss alternatives
> to whatever their site is about." -- philosophy sites certainly do
> discuss alternatives.

Positioning nonfree and free software as alternatives runs against 
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Alternative quoted below:

> We don't describe free software as an “alternative” to proprietary,
> because that word presumes all the “alternatives” are legitimate and
> each additional one makes users better off. In effect, it assumes that
> free software ought to coexist with software that does not respect
> users' freedom.
>
> We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to
> make software available for others to use. The other methods, nonfree
> software and Service as a Software Substitute subjugate their users. We
> do not think it is good to offer users those “alternatives” to free
> software.

This is similar to the listed objection on the same webpage calling all 
writing "content" which suggests every piece of writing is interchangeable 
with every other piece of writing, presumably the only difference worth 
recognizing is commercial value. That's not the case, they argue, so we 
shouldn't use language which suggests that is the case.