Non-free software is divisive and harmful. [LWN.net]

Non-free software is divisive and harmful.

Posted Jun 22, 2006 6:40 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40)
In reply to: Non-free software is divisive and harmful. by einstein
Parent article: Google Earth for Linux

> Pray explain how my using google earth on linux is an "agreement to betray"
> anyone.

The Google Earth (non-Pro) license agreement is viewable here, for those who haven't downloaded the software: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=34344

It says in the first paragraph: "BY INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTED WITH
THIS AGREEMENT (THE "SOFTWARE"), YOU ARE CONFIRMING YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT")."

So, by installing the software, you either agree to the license terms, or you knowingly intend to breach them.

The license terms include: "2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS

You shall not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate,
modify or make derivative works of the Software, geographical
information, animations, movies, prints or screen outputs in whole or in
part."

This means by agreeing to the terms, you agree to betray your neighbour, by refusing to help in any of the ways restricted by the license terms.

> If "my neighbor" likes the program I can give him a URL to download it
> just like I did.

My assumption is that the neighbour is a person you would like to help.

If your neighbour asks for a copy of the program (or installation package) *from your computer*, the license terms prevent you from helping her. If your neighbour cannot get a copy of the program that you're running (Google is not promising to make that particular version available forever), but you still have a copy, you have it within your power to help that neighbour.

You then must either honour the agreement and (remembering this is a person you would like to help) betray her, or help her and breach the agreement with the software vendor.

Either of these actions are harmful, and either one is a direct result of the software vendor offering those divisive terms in the first place. That is a harm done by non-free software.

> Please tone down the hysterics.

Please don't presume to know my emotional state when I'm not talking about emotions.

> This sort of rhetoric can be used to convince the world that linux users
> are a a bunch of kooks.

I'm not attempting to soften the message. Actions and choices have consequences. Offering divisive non-free license terms is a harm to the community.

(Log in to post comments)