“The question is, how can you tell people why free software is better because it grands its users liberties? how do you personally do it if you do it at all? how did you come to know what values free software has and how do you propagate them if you do?”

When I talk to people about free software, it is usually because they have called me to fix something that has broken on their system. Usually, they ask me, “How can I prevent this from happening again?” and I find that they have asked someone else this same question, to which they receive the answer, “It is Windows. You just have to live with it.” My answer to them is usually along the lines of, “Well, the way that I make sure that none of this nonsense happens to me is that I don’t use Windows.” I couch the argument in a means that will pique their interest, first—this causes them to think for a bit, and they wonder how what I just told them makes any kind of sense whatsoever. If they want, I then show them my system, and I talk to them about the software that is running on it—and explain to them why it is that I use it. I also explain to them that, like anything else created by people, it is imperfect, but in different ways. In all the ways that matter to me, or to most people, the software that I use works just fine, and the only issues I have with it are subtle little ways that it could be improved, which we have the power to do.

This usually makes them stop again and think about that. As life-long users of proprietary software, the thought of being capable to fix issues with their software just does not make sense to them. They tend to ask all sorts of questions, like “Well, how is that possible?” and “How is it that the software can be free (gratis) and yet it can be sustained?” and (this is my favorite) “What’s the catch?”.

I’m not sure what you are asking when you ask how I came to know what values free software has. I guess what you want to know is when I started with free software and how I was introduced to it? That is the question that I will answer, and if I have it wrong, please clarify and I will try to do better about giving you an answer that you want instead of the answer that I think you want.

Anyway, I was a user of MS-DOS from 1987 until the mid 1990s. Sometime around 1993, I started using Windows 3.x, mostly so that I could run more DOS programs at once. I was less than pleased with the reliability of the system, and the inadequate power of DOS applications generally. I did have some application software that run under Windows 3, such as Microsoft Works, but for the most part I went back to using Microsoft Works for DOS because it worked better than the Windows version did, in my opinion. Anyway, I was working at a small computer store at that time, and around the end of 1995, I think as we all recall, Windows 95 was released. The computer store that I was working at gave us all copies of it so that we could learn its substantially different UI and functionality, so that we would be able to handle our users who already had the system; I remember all the craziness of people trying to go get the OS (really, operating environment on defective steroids, the way the system was designed and constructed, but that is the topic of something else entirely) and all the hype which ultimately wound up being very disappointing. We had numerous people coming to our store asking for help, trying to get things to work that simply would not, and so forth.

Anyway, I was complaining about how the software was simply just too large and opaque. It was not something that one could learn every nuance of—at least not quickly, not quickly enough to provide adequate support for it—because it could not be pulled apart and analyzed. Well, in response to that, one of my coworkers gave me a Walnut Creek CD-ROM distribution that had several GNU/Linux systems on it. He told me, “what is on these discs is free software; you can install it, copy it, look at the source code and modify it, study it, pretty much do whatever you want with it. Most of it is GPL, though there are some things that are not. Check it out.” When I went home that Saturday, I took out the one that said “Slackware” and put it in my computer’s CD-ROM drive. I installed it over-top my DOS and Windows 3.x installation (I did not have Windows 95 on that computer, as it was not able to run Windows 95) and ran it exclusively for a while. I of course did not get much work done at first, because I was too busy trying to learn the system. But after about a month or so, I learned enough to be able to set up 24 text-mode VTs and use all the software that I needed to use to do the things that I wanted to do—make my dialup connection to my ISP, get on IRC, build software, browse the Web, send and receive email and IMs…

Over time, not only was I completely impressed with the facilities that were available on Slackware to do basic things that I struggled to be able to do under DOS and Windows, but I was completely impressed with the philosophy behind free software—the ability to have the source code, study the source code, and modify and contribute back simply made sense to me. The things that were made possible just by giving people freedom were impressive to me. Even before I learned of free software, it was what I’d pretty much imagined. I have always thought that freedom was the one thing that we undervalue as a society, just watching others and the way that they give up on things just because they don’t want to expend the energy to deal with it properly. Of course, this has bled over into software and computing, today, to a degree.

Anyway, when I encounter people who have never heard of free software, I try to explain it to them such that they understand two things: the system is a result of free software developers putting in their time and effort to bring free software to everyone, and that this also means that I can help more effectively if they have trouble (and they bother to ask for help). It would be a failure on my part to not explain these things to people and at least inform them about the concepts that underlie the system, for several reasons (but one important one is so that they can understand some of the very significant differences between the free software distribution model and the proprietary software distribution model).

Advocacy does not build free software; people who want to build free software do. If you try to advocate to a free software developer how (s)he should spend his or her time, unless you’re offering them money to spend their time the way you want them to, you are just an annoyance. You may want to keep that in mind—advocating for free software developers to spend their time working on Flash when they have their plates already too full to add something to is not going to be at all productive.

As far as informing users after the proprietary software is added to the system, that is something that would be up for discussion and debate, I think. We could have the system let them know, using spoken word (end-users read nothing, trust me), that they are about to install software that is not free software, and offer them a link to click on to read a rationale as to why they may not want to install such software (or click a button to play a video of someone explaining it to them). We have the power to do that, and it would not be a bad idea. Of course, the actual mechanism for doing so is outside the scope of this thread of conversation and would be better proposed in another forum.

I used Adobe Flash as an example because it is the type of lock-in software I mentioned earlier. Not better software, but software that users feel compelled to use.

“why is it not acceptable for proprietary software vendors to “play dirty” when it comes to “educating” their users, but it is perfectly acceptable for free software advocates to do it?”

I don’t agree that free software advocates should play dirty and lie about proprietary software. I’m not sure why you think I said that?

You keep equating freedom with a requirement that we must give friends proprietary software. That’s not freedom, that’s coercion.

“Your statement that “[You] don’t accept the proposition that we should guide our friends to free software unless we have done everything in our power to pass on the values we espouse” makes no sense to me”

I’m not surprised, I meant to say “proprietary software”–bit of difference

“I also find it insulting that you would make the implication that a community that makes proprietary software available for people to opt-in to using is somehow less than educated.”

Don’t be insulted, because I think you have twisted my meaning. I’m saying a community that values free software, should do far more to educate on why proprietary software should not be used. If they knew what we know, would they still opt to use that piece of proprietary software? I want my friends to have that knowledge.

“Your entire last paragraph, though, Chris, is perhaps the most scary. I can not enumerate how many times in history such dramatic, highly emotionally charged words have been called upon to justify actions which logic itself does not support.”

Sorry, can you point to exactly to what scares you in my text? And please don’t fall on the religion crutch. It’s the first time anyone has done that to me in a conversation and I find it very rude. I think promoting proprietary software is unethical. I see a danger in a world of proprietary software imposing treacherous computing, DRM, and the widespread monitoring of citizens. My logic points out that proprietary software will lead to a less free society.

I think people should have a choice in what software they want to run on their computers and we shouldnt make it difficult for them to exercise that choice. I think most people will agree with you here even those who appear to be opposing you on the comments.

The question is, how can you tell people why free software is better because it grands its users liberties? how do you personally do it if you do it at all? how did you come to know what values free software has and how do you propagate them if you do?

Linux get new users all the time who do not know the ideas behind why it exists in the first place and it is important for the sustainability of the movement for these new converts to know these ideas, embrace them and hopefully spread them. That can not happen if we stop mentioning these ideas. How do we make new converts aware of these ideas? Adding proprietary software without mentioning why they are proprietary and why its better not to use them will ultimately do us more harm that good because new converts will fail to appreciate why the movement started in the first place.

Take an example of huludesktop, i know this application is proprietary but i am using it because i want to and i am thankful hulu made it but i recognize its problems due is proprietary nature. How can i share its problematic nature to new converts? forcing them them not to use it will not be appropriate, not mentioning its problematic nature may do more harm than good because these new convert may have the technical skill or advocacy capabilities and could play a critical role is building a free flash killer

How does Ubuntu make new converts make informed choices is the question. Adding proprietary packages to official repository make things easier but at what cost(if there is any) over the long term?

I am actually agreeing with you and i think most people who have commented do too. We just happen to put more emphasis on mentioning the ideas behind free software when giving people their choices. If our emphasis was on exactly the same areas as yours, we wouldnt have said anything because we would just repeat what you already said

The terms that you are using are political in nature, and are inappropriate in this context and venue. The ends of a spectrum are emotionally-charged places to be. If you feel that I am making an emotional argument, you are in error, and I call upon you to read my writing again. If you feel that I am making an emotional argument, please tell me where so that I can restate what I want to say without the emotional charge to it. It would appear that in my composition that I permitted some emotions to perhaps modify the meaning, though not the intent, of my words.

The only motivation that I have for proposing a distinction is that there is a naturally occurring distinction between proprietary and free software. Proprietary software does not grant any liberty, free software does. If you feel that there is a more neutral term to use, I would be fine with that being the term to be used. I know of no such term, however; I think that both “free software” and “proprietary software” succinctly and accurately describe the types of software that they are.

If we want to talk about things technically, we could (and we have the technology to manage this) classify categories by any number of means. Some users want to only have software that is under a certain license. Or a certain family of licenses that they themselves approve of. Some people might consider the BSD license to be non-free (despite the fact that logic cannot support that assertion—BSD software is just not guaranteed to be persistently free, but it grants more freedom than GPL, for example), while others might say that the GPL software is unacceptable except for critical pieces of software that they must have to run their system.

Perhaps repositories are the wrong way, then, to organize packages. Perhaps the package manager should allow the user to see enough metadata to automatically tell their system what they want and what they do not want and can then have the package manager enforce their preferences for them. Then the repository can have software licensed under GPL, LGPL, BSD, New BSD, MIT, X11, Ms-PL (free), Ms-RL (not free), Generic non-free EULA, or a myriad of other options. However, that is a discussion point for another time, because it is not the point of this entire post. It seems that the point is lost on a great number of readers here.

Is freedom really dying such a horrible death? How about basic respect for the way others work, or the values of others, since we do not all share the same exact set of values and we cannot dictate values for others?

I find it interesting that you picked Adobe’s Flash as an example, as it is one that we already have (and we have free software alternatives for it that desperately need attention). Adobe’s implementation of the Flash virtual machine is something that is commonly installed on Ubuntu because many pieces of the Internet require it—sites that implement children’s games, adult games, programming utilities, video playing, audio playing, and more. Explaining to someone that Flash is non-free software is something that we should take the time to do. Nobody here is contesting that. Insofar as Flash goes (or any Adobe product, really), I do find it surprising that Adobe makes you really dig to get to their various licenses. I have long found that behavior of theirs to be rather obnoxious. That said, when people ask what non-free means in the context of everyday software, I generally find it useful to explain to them just what it is that they are agreeing to (which of course, is different for each different type of proprietary application license). Quite often, in doing so, I get a reaction of genuine surprise. Most people do not realize what it is that they agree to when they use non-free software—and very often, this is something that will get people to think about whether or not they really want to use the software. Almost always, if there is a free software alternative, they will then ask for it (and if there is not a free software alternative, or there is one, but it cannot be used, then they will choose between going without and making the agreement). But the case in point here is that the user must have the choice. And we should not make it inordinately difficult to allow them to make that choice; all that we are doing, then, in reality, is hindering the user’s choice. That makes us no better than proprietary software vendors trying to persuade their customers that they should not use free software because free software is not genuine, paid-for software, and as such could be chock-full of viruses, malware, trojan horses, and so forth.

You bring up the question of ethics repeatedly. From this, I gather ethics generally are important to you. So, if that is indeed the case, I should like to hear what your answer to this question is: why is it not acceptable for proprietary software vendors to “play dirty” when it comes to “educating” their users, but it is perfectly acceptable for free software advocates to do it? This is an inconsistency in your argument. We find what Microsoft does in many areas to be unacceptable: they lie to their customers, they lie about free software, they lie about GNU/Linux systems, and they lie about many other things. Some things maybe are not outright lies so much as they are “marketing truths”, but I personally consider them both to be the same: it is the whole truth, or it is a lie, so far as I am concerned. You see, I, too, value ethics highly. However, what I consider to be ethical or unethical is based on logic—which may not reflect my opinion or emotional feelings on the subject.

I find it interesting that you said that we would not be imposing anything on others, merely “being true to our values and convictions.” If we value freedom, then we must not stand in the way of freedom! You mention that there are “plenty of other distributions that promote proprietary software.” Good for them. That is not what is being discussed here. If this is not something that you are understanding already, even after reading and commenting, then I have to wonder how closely you read and how much you really thought about what you read. Nobody is saying that we should promote, encourage the use of, or advocate for proprietary software. If you think that is what is being said, then you are reading something that is not there; merely making something available is not an endorsement, promotion, encouragement, or advocacy for it. To believe that it is such is to misunderstand this entire post, the premise behind it, and the things that I have so far stated here and elsewhere. If that misunderstanding is due to some lack of clarity on my part, please point it out so that I can correct the deficiency in my wording; I would very much dislike others to misunderstand the same way because of an ambiguity that I created.

Your statement that “[You] don’t accept the proposition that we should guide our friends to free software unless we have done everything in our power to pass on the values we espouse” makes no sense to me; I do not understand what the meaning of that sentence was to be. It is not consistent with itself. We should absolutely guide our friends to free software. When someone says, “hey, I have to write a paper and format it in APA format, what should I use for that?” are you going to take the time to guide them to the free software available in Ubuntu that will enable them to set their paper properly, obeying all of the rules of the APA format, allowing the user to focus on content and save time? I do not no many people who would take that time—instead, they would say, “use OpenOffice.org,” which is a (mostly) free software application program. It will do the job, given enough time and effort on the part of the writer, but experience tells me that there is a more free, more elegant, more functional, more æsthetic, and less time-consuming solution in XeLaTeX, provided that one actually gives the effort to educate the user. And the user will be happy that you spent that time to educate them more often than not. Sure, sometimes people will go, “I just want to go with what I know, I am not comfortable learning something new,” and if they remain that way after being prodded gently a few times then it is best to leave them be. It is a process, introducing people to free software. It is unreasonable to expect anyone will simply switch from another system and want to use 100% purely free software for the sake of freedom. Maybe you have not noticed, but people simply do not work that way, particularly when they carry an entitlist attitude.

I also find it insulting that you would make the implication that a community that makes proprietary software available for people to opt-in to using is somehow less than educated. You are attempting to solidify the case for censorship, as far as I can tell: you cannot sell that here, it shall not be bought. You further assume that the distribution is somehow responsible for the user’s choices. This is very much a corporate style of thinking, that the provider of something is liable for how it is used. You also seem to assume still that proprietary software will be chosen over free software. More insult to developers of free software, words like that are.

Your entire last paragraph, though, Chris, is perhaps the most scary. I can not enumerate how many times in history such dramatic, highly emotionally charged words have been called upon to justify actions which logic itself does not support. Nearly every single long-established religious group has done it at one point or another in its history; governments have been guilty all throughout history of doing that, as well. Those have been dark times indeed. And now, we see this same pattern in the world of free software, almost as if free software itself were a religion. This is what is truly harmful to the movements of freedom generally and free software specifically. This is the type of argument that Shestowitz hopes to capitalize on: he cannot win people over with logic, because logic does not support his extremist position, so he has rallied them up in numbers using emotion, because people are more easily swayed by perceptions than reality itself (a trend that has itself been going forward for years, generally and globally).

So, Chris, if you’re going to reply yet again, I would kindly appreciate it if you could clear up the following points for me, such that I might be able to understand more clearly where you are coming from (and why), and such that you can show me where my errors are, as, in re-reading, I am presently unable to find them. Where (exactly) did I give you the impression that proprietary software was to be advocated? Where (exactly) did I give you the impression that a distribution that has made available a method for installing proprietary software creates a dependence on that proprietary software? Why do you feel that you have a “duty” to Ubuntu and not, say, to all of your fellow human beings in this world? For that matter, if you do feel you have a duty to your fellow human beings, why do you seem to feel that such duty is of a lower priority than your duty to Ubuntu? Where is the logic in keeping an artificial barrier in place for end users to jump over? How did you arrive at the conclusion of “the mere presence of non-free software creates a reliance on it,” as well, because I fail to understand how this is the case.

Time and time again in history, we have seen free software authors create reimplementations of software when the need has arisen. Often it just requires the right developer(s) to see the need and be motivated to do it. After all, not every free software project—indeed, almost no free software project—is heavily funded, particularly at its inception. So, the project won’t exist or be worked on until such time as the right person needs the thing and has the ability (or the desire, or both) to implement the solution in terms of free software. To date, no free software developer that I am aware of has seen the need to create a free software front end for the iTunes store, so no free software version (again, that I am aware of) exists. If a user wants to buy music from the iTunes store, they must use another operating system (whether in a virtual machine or not is not the question nor really relevant) to do so. Why not, then, just use that other operating system full time, and use the proprietary software that comes with it? Then it is easier to just use what is there than opt-in to free software; whereas on systems such as Ubuntu you get the free software automatically and opt-in to using proprietary software. That is the way it should be—otherwise, we do worse than we think we are, sending people back to using systems where free software is the opt-in. That is what is counterproductive.

For example, you are for giving people choice and you are on the left on this matter. How far to the left are you? you advocated adding proprietary programs but you said it will be appropriate if they are on a separate repository clearly marked as “proprietary”.

Making a distinction btw “proprietary” repository and regular foss repository shows a limit to how far to the left you are comfortable to go. Another individual may wish to go further to the left and say you are restricting freedoms because you are treating these proprietary programs as second class packages.

A position further to the left of what you propose will be to lump up all packages in the same repository without making any distinction what package is proprietary and what isnt to make users not feel bad about choosing these packages?

why do you think these packages should be on a separate repository marked “proprietary”? why not lump all packages in the same repository and make no mention what package is proprierary and what isnt?

you are advocating “separate but equal” which is a liberal point with elements of conservatism. A true liberal position should only be “equal”

i guess the essence of my posts is “how liberal are you”?

“The value in question here is freedom. Period.”

I understand your point, but I don’t accept that your framing is relevant to the work of free software advocacy. Yes, everyone should be free to do what they want. Freedom! But as free software advocates we play an important role in educating our friends and promoting free software values in the community.

“We should never impose our value judgments on others.”

We have freedom too! We are not powerless in the face of someone saying, “give me Adobe Flash to use with this distribution”. We are free to say, “sorry, we don’t advocate proprietary software and here’s why….. You are free to go to another distribution that does.”

That is not imposing our values on others, that is being true to our values and convictions. There are already plenty of other distributions that promote proprietary software. And there are plenty of proprietary software companies with big marketing budgets.

I don’t accept the proposition that we should guide our friends to free software unless we have done everything in our power to pass on the values we espouse. So that they too say, “wow yeah, that’s a useful piece of proprietary software but now I know about the issue, there’s no way I will use it. I’d rather go without.”

I would like the distribution I use and support to reflect the values of an educated community.

As someone who does believe that the promotion of proprietary software is unethical and who is worried about the harm to society should we fail in our work, I don’t want to see my fellow free software friends advocating for distributions in a way that builds reliance on proprietary software. A reliance typically not built on software being better, but on some technical or legal lock-in. I don’t want the distribution I use to be guiding people or encouraging them to use proprietary software. And I feel I have a duty to Ubuntu, a distribution I have used for many years, to advocate that they don’t make more proprietary software available.

Chris

Rather long comment back in response to yours here. Please do take care to read it throughly if you choose to make another response, and carefully ponder the points that I raise here.

You know, if Canonical made it possible to “sudo aptitude install ms-win7-vm”, that would be their choice. You wouldn’t catch me using it, nor would you see me recommending its use. But I know that there are plenty of people that want to run Windows in a virtual machine, and they will do so anyway if that is really what they want.

You are right on one thing: this is absolutely a question of values. But it’s not about proprietary software; to shift the argument such that you think that it is, well, that is to miss the point entirely. The value in question here is freedom. Period.

Also, note that software is not a living thing: it cannot be ethical or unethical itself. But there are a few questions that we can consider: Is it ethical to write proprietary software? Is it ethical to use proprietary software? Is it ethical to steal proprietary software? the only question that we can answer with any assurance of certainty is the very last question: it is in fact unethical to steal proprietary software, because the act of theft is unethical. We know that the act of theft is unethical because theft is “the illegal taking of another person’s property without that person’s freely-given consent.”¹ Because we know that theft is wrong, we must cease to consider the question further—it does not matter what the object of the theft is, because theft itself is wrong.

The question of whether or not it is ethical to develop and/or use proprietary software, however, that is I think the question that you are driving at. And the answer to that is that it is not unethical, at least. That is not a very concrete answer, I know, but consider that not all things can be. Whether something is ethical or not is assumed by most to be a question that has a binary answer, and there is the connotation that unethical means wrong, and ethical means that it is right or desirable. That said, how can we evaluate whether or not something is ethical? The act itself of writing code that is not free (that is, that does not carry with it liberty to its end users and distributors and fellow developers) does not cause harm to others. The act itself of buying a license to use a non-free program, likewise, does not cause harm to others. It is a financial transaction, not unlike the financial transaction that we enter into when we buy a textbook.

Yes, a textbook. Consider that for a moment. We often do not even think twice about books on paper. Why should we? We go to the book store (whether it is a brick-and-mortar bookstore or a virtual storefront makes no difference) and we pay for a book. What are we paying for? We are buying a license for that book’s content. We do not own the words in the book. We can destroy the paper and the binding and the cover, because we own the paper that those words are printed on, but those words are restricted. They are non-free. Is it unethical to write a book that is non-free? No, of course not. Therefore, why would it be unethical to write code that is non-free?

Do not misconstrue what I am saying here: I am not saying that people should write non-free code. If you assume that my statement that it is not unethical to write such code is also an endorsement to write such code, you are not paying very close attention to the nuance of my words—indeed, you are merging completely independent concepts together if that is how you read my words. I do not endorse proprietary software. I do not like proprietary software. But my opinion on proprietary software and whether it should be used or not is irrelevant here, for the more important issue is that freedom must be defended. Freedom itself is something I value far more than any tangible thing which can be easily rebuilt. Freedom takes hard work to get, and hard work to keep. And to see this generation of “free software advocates” essentially ignore what freedom itself is, this is bad. This is no better than the government taking away freedom in the name of security, because if we censor certain types of things away from people we can control them better. It does not matter if we are talking about people who are customers, or people who are friends—we must take care to guard everyone’s freedom equally, for if we permit people to convince us to give up freedom that we have or reject freedom that we could have then we are not doing right by our fellow human beings.

Now, I do share your opinion that proprietary software—as we know it—will eventually lose to software which delivers freedom as well as functionality. However, do not delude yourself into thinking that proprietary software will completely disappear, for if you successfully do so, you shall lose sight of the goal without realizing that you have done so. Do also realize that “ethical considerations” are not things which we can impose upon others. Every person must consider what their wants and needs are, and weigh them against their own personal concerns and values. It is not for I to determine what your values are; nor do you have any place telling me what mine are; and neither of us have any place to tell users of Ubuntu or any other distribution what their values are. Ethics and morals are to an extent determined individually. Only in certain specific cases can we determine the ethical position of something. Is murder ethical? Generally, no; but there are times which murder is not only justifiable but necessary in order to maintain one’s own safety and life.

You are correct in that more and more people are using the term “free software” today. But many of them have lost sight of freedom itself, and behave as if it is not freedom which matters, but only free software. This is incorrect. Further, the actual position that I am arguing against is the notion that one can be free without choice. This is a much deeper issue than that of free software or proprietary software.

Now, what Canonical is doing is asking users what they want. Why would they do that if they did not value their users’ most important freedom of all—the freedom of choice? Ask yourself this: does your grandmother want to use free software? If she does, then she will not make the choice to use iTunes. If the question to her is not one of free software—or, if she values the iTunes application itself more than she values the freedom that the rest of the software on her system grants her—then she will want to choose to use iTunes, despite the fact that it is a proprietary application.

I am not “justifying” anything other than the statement that users should have their freedom. Those of us—myself included—who value the freedoms that free software gives to us will choose to use free software. This does not, however, mean that we should punish those who want to use proprietary software. Merely offering a package in a repository is not telling a user that they must use it, nor it is encouraging the use of it. Instead, it is simply a means of ensuring that the package runs on the system in a manner that users who would want that package will be able to run it. Even providing something installed by default on Ubuntu is not saying “here, you must use this.” It is free software, you can copy and modify the media and remove such things and redistribute that, if you want! You can type 30 characters on the keyboard to purge such software from your system, if you want! It is only the truly lazy who will insist that it be done for them, who expect freedom itself to be gratis and without the cost of time and effort.

I did not say that free software advocates who oppose proprietary software are proponents of doublespeak. I said that the statement “You can have freedom without choice” is doublespeak. It is essentially “slavery = freedom”, or the inverse, depending on which side you approach the issue from.

The major problem here is that there are a large number of people—a scary large number—who are ignoring the issue of freedom itself. Instead, they feel that it is more important to offer less choice to users, at the cost of making a value judgment for those users. We should never impose our value judgments on others. It is the beginning of miles (kilometers) of bad road that we do not want to travel down. If you want to see what happens when value judgments are imposed on others, research the founding days of the Christian religion, or the many clashes that we have seen in history when groups of people try to force their values on each other. It never ends well, and I do not have any logical reason to believe that this will be any different.

Finally, there is a more fundamental issue at stake here: the group of people who follow Shestowitz are really proponents of censorship, which we know to be directly contrary to the goal of freedom. This is evidence that they fear that the proprietary software that is being tentatively discussed for being made available in Ubuntu is somehow or another inherently better than free software. As a free software developer myself, I find that sort of insinuation absolutely insulting. I should expect, if you are developer of free software as you say you are, that you would also find that to be an insult. It carries with it the heavy implication that free software is somehow not as good as proprietary software. We already know this to be true if we have used GNU/Linux systems for a long time and have equivalent experience with the Windows system—I don’t know of a single person who is technically competent in both systems who would choose Windows for any purpose, for a myriad of reasons.

I follow the logic of your argument, but the question is really about values. Is proprietary software ethical? If your values say it is, then you are happy to give your friend proprietary software to use. If your values say that proprietary software is unethical, then you would never contemplate doing that to a friend.

If you don’t consider Ubunutu users friends and instead think of users as customers who must be satisfied so that they will continue to use your distribution over another’s, then that might also be a reason to temporarily put aside ethical considerations.

I think proprietary software is unethical and that our society is becoming more ethical over time. This will eventually lead to the disappearance of proprietary software as we know it. I see this change happening to a degree within our own community. I see more developers like myself talking about free software as opposed to open source, that wasn’t true of me two tears ago, and even the worst of proprietary companies are now talking about using and distributing open source.

Overall, I understand why Ubuntu would make proprietary software available–it wants to be the most used distribution. I just don’t agree with the basis of your justification for it, or you equating free software advocates who ethically oppose proprietary software as proponents of Orwellian doublespeak.

I could better accept Ubuntu saying, “tactically, to get more people using free software now, we will make popular proprietary software applications available to our users, but we continue to work with the community to replace them with free versions.”

Chris

Good point with glibc. glibc is built on a standard which is non-free for publication and non-free to acquire. Perhaps the GNU system should not have been built on top of the well-known UNIX system since these people think that even the slightest bit of non-freeness is a bad thing. Hey, anyone have an operating system specification handy that is 100% free content?