[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy compromise.html
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
www/philosophy compromise.html |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:45:54 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 09/09/27 01:45:54
Modified files:
philosophy : compromise.html
Log message:
Clarifications, some from jrasata.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/compromise.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
Patches:
Index: compromise.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/compromise.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- compromise.html 10 Aug 2009 11:55:02 -0000 1.8
+++ compromise.html 27 Sep 2009 01:45:22 -0000 1.9
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
margin-top: 4em;"><p><em>“Twenty-five years
ago <a href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">on September 27, 1983, I
announced a plan</a> to create a completely free operating system
-called GNU — for ‘GNU is not Unix’. As part of the
+called GNU—for ‘GNU is not Unix’. As part of the
25th anniversary of the GNU system, I have written this article on how
our community can avoid ruinous compromises. In addition to avoiding
such compromises, there are many ways you can <a href="/help/">help
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
<p>The free software movement aims for a social
change: <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">to make all software
free</a> so that all software users are free and can be part of a
-community of cooperation. Every non-free program gives its developer
+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>
@@ -33,16 +33,13 @@
is <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/">
a long road</a>. 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 steps become
-easier if we make compromises with people that have different
-goals.</p>
-
-
+of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice. Some of them become easier
+if we make compromises with people that have different goals.</p>
<p>Thus, the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/">Free Software
-Foundation</a> makes compromises — even major ones. For
+Foundation</a> makes compromises—even major ones. For
instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of
-the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>, so
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (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>
@@ -51,36 +48,36 @@
<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl.html">The Lesser GPL</a>'s purpose is a
compromise: we use it on certain chosen free libraries to permit their
-use in non-free programs, because we think that legally prohibiting
+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 GNU programs to make them work together
-with common non-free programs, and we document and publicize this in
+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
+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 <a href="/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">only
-endorse the GNU/Linux distributions</a> that have policies not to
-include non-free software or lead users to install it. To endorse
-non-free distributions would be a <acronym title="ruinous
+we <a href="/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">
+endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions</a> that have policies not to
+include nonfree software or lead users to install it. To endorse
+nonfree distributions would be a <acronym title="ruinous
(rū'ə-nəs) adj. 1. Causing or apt to cause ruin;
destructive. 2. Falling to ruin; dilapidated or
decayed.">ruinous</acronym> compromise.</p>
<p>Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the
-long term. That can occur at the level of ideas, or at the level of
+long term. That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the level of
actions.</p>
<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 effects
+values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
such as price and convenience.</p>
-<p>Dale Carnegie's famous self-help book, <cite>How to Win Friends and
+<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
@@ -92,11 +89,11 @@
<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 consumer
-values understand. That's what the term “open source” is
-used for.</p>
+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 only get us part way to the goal of freedom. People
+<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>
@@ -104,7 +101,7 @@
<p>The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That's why we
<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">do not support
-“open source”</a>.</p>
+open source.</a></p>
<img src="/graphics/gnulaptop.png" alt="" style="float: right;" />
@@ -121,66 +118,66 @@
compromise that would influence their actions by endorsing their
consumer values.</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 people focus on practical
-advantage at the expense of freedom, or suggest that others do so. So
+<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 reasons</em>
+frequently that those are just <em>additional, secondary reasons</em>
to prefer it.</p>
-<p>It's not enough to make our words accord with our ideals. Our
+<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
<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">GNU/Linux</a> if you include some
-non-free programs. This could mean a cute non-free application that
-will catch some user's eye, or a non-free programming platform such
+nonfree programs. This could mean a cute nonfree application that
+will catch some user's eye, or a nonfree programming platform such
as <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java</a> (formerly) or the
-Flash runtime (still), or a non-free device driver that enables
+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 non-free software, or steer people towards it, you will
-find it hard to say, “Non-free software is an injustice, a
+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 non-free software; a general-purpose
+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 non-free software. What they do on
+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, are our responsibility. We must not direct the
+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>
<p>A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can
-change your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you
-believe in certain values, but your actions imply other conflicting
-values, you are likely to change one or the other so as to resolve the
+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 towards some non-free software, nearly
-always shy away from even <em>suggesting</em> that non-free software
+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 even to
-keep our values straight.</p>
+reinforce consumer values. We must reject these compromises if we wish
+to keep our values straight.</p>
<p>If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal
-of freedom, look at <a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources">the FSF
+of freedom, look at <a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources">the FSF's
resources area</a>. It lists hardware and machine configurations that
work with free software, <a href="/distros"> totally free GNU/Linux
distros</a> to install, and thousands of free software packages that
-work in a 100% free software environment. If you want to help the
+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>It's no use going faster by taking the wrong road. Compromise is
-essential to achieve a large goal, but beware of compromises that lead
-away from the goal.</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.</p>
</div>
@@ -235,7 +232,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/08/10 11:55:02 $
+$Date: 2009/09/27 01:45:22 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy compromise.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=