www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program...


From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: www/philosophy is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program...
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 10:55:20 +0000 (UTC)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       16/12/20 10:55:20

Modified files:
        philosophy     : is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html 

Log message:
        Move the secondary criticisms of using a nonfree program to a footnote
        so users will feel less criticized.
        Other minor changes.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16

Patches:
Index: is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html       18 Nov 2016 06:31:39 -0000      
1.15
+++ is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html       20 Dec 2016 10:55:19 -0000      
1.16
@@ -11,19 +11,15 @@
 Stallman</strong></a></p>
 
 <p>If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom;
-the main one harmed is you. Your usage of it can harm others
-indirectly, by encouraging development of that nonfree program. If
-you make a promise not to redistribute the program to others, you do
-wrong, because breaking such a promise is bad and keeping it is worse.
-Still, the main direct harm is to you.</p>
-
-<p>It is even worse if you recommend that others run the nonfree program,
-or lead them to do so. When you do that, you're leading them to give
-up their freedom. Thus, what we should avoid most firmly is leading
-or encouraging others to run nonfree software. (Where the program uses
+the immediate wrong is directed at you.(<a href="#Footnote">*</a>)</p>
+
+<p>If you recommend that others run the nonfree program,
+or lead them to do so, you're leading them to give
+up their freedom. Thus, we have a responsibility not to lead
+or encourage others to run nonfree software.  Where the program uses
 a secret protocol for communication, as in the case of Skype, your own
 use of it pressures others to use it too, so it is especially
-important to reject any use of these programs.)</p>
+important to avoid any use of these programs.</p>
 
 <p>But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and
 even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when
@@ -34,8 +30,8 @@
 replacement for Unix. The feasible way to do it was to write and test
 the components one by one on Unix. But was it legitimate to use Unix
 for this? And was it legitimate to ask others to use Unix for this,
-given that Unix was proprietary software? Of course, if it had not
-been proprietary, it would not have required replacing.</p>
+given that Unix was proprietary software?  (Of course, if it had not
+been proprietary, it would not have required replacing.)</p>
 
 <p>The conclusion I reached was that using Unix to put an end to the use
 of Unix was legitimate for me to suggest to other developers.
@@ -103,6 +99,28 @@
 arguments apply: it is legitimate to recommend running some nonfree
 software momentarily in order to remove it.</p>
 
+
+<hr />
+
+<p><a id="footnote">Footnote</a>: Using the nonfree program can have
+unfortunate indirect effects, such as rewarding the perpetrator and
+encouraging more use of that program.  This is a further reason to
+shun use of nonfree programs.</p>
+
+<p>Most proprietary programs come with an End User License Agreement
+that hardly anyone reads.  Tucked away in it, in most cases, is an
+unethical commitment to be an uncooperative, bad neighbor.  It
+purports to be a promise not to distribute copies to others, or even
+lend someone a copy.</p>
+
+<p>To carry out such a commitment is more wrong than to break it.  No
+matter what legalistic arguments they might make, the developers can
+hardly claim their shady trick gives users a moral obligation to be
+uncooperative.</p>
+
+<p>However, we think that the truly moral path is to carefully reject
+such agreements.<p/>
+
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
@@ -160,7 +178,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $
+$Date: 2016/12/20 10:55:19 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]