| |||||||||||||
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"Posted Nov 11, 2010 13:48 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)In reply to: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" by lxoliva Parent article: FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core"
*scratches head*
I think this post of yours is perhaps the one which explains your position the clearest.
But it sounds as if you believe non-free is some sort of cancer which will spread if given even the thinnest of wedges, and push free software into the tiniest of niches. I am not that pessimistic.
I believe that, instead of only allowing a perfect system with no non-free components, it is better to attack on multiple layers at the same time, while accepting some temporary imperfection. While one team deals with freeing the core of an operating system kernel, another set of teams can deal with freeing the drivers, yet another set can deal with freeing the firmware, and in a corner another team is working on creating completely free hardware, and so on, all working independently and at the same time. Each team has to allow for some non-free parts while good free alternatives aren't available.
I also do not think the situation is getting worse. For a while, you had to use closed-source drivers if you wanted decent 3D acceleration on common desktops; nowadays, we are near having free decent 3D acceleration on common desktops, both with help of hardware vendors (AMD and Intel) and via sheer reverse engineering (nVidia). The situation with wireless drivers is similar; nowadays, even Broadcom has started helping (see http://lwn.net/Articles/404248/). The synergy advantages of free software start showing; with the free graphics drivers, we have kernel modesetting, and now even the kernel debugger can work with them. And I do not doubt that, as soon as nouveau is good enough that people do not feel the need to install the "official" nVidia drivers, the mechanisms which make the non-free driver easier to install will start to get neglected.
Finally, I do not think we must tell users about the philosophical side first. I myself started by using DJGPP, and only later learned of the philosophy. If you force users to learn about software freedom first, you will lose a lot of people who would learn about it later. And even if they do not learn or do not care about it, isn't it better, if only because of the network effects, that they use free software, even if only for part of their needs?
(Log in to post comments)
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 2:57 UTC (Fri) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
- Linus Torvalds, quoting Voltaire.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:25 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> you will lose a lot of people who would learn about it later
Can't lose something I don't have.
> isn't it better, if only because of the network effects, that they use free software, even if only for part of their needs
For themselves, yes, it's better. For the Free Software movement, I'd say it isn't: if they're taught that short-term practical reasons are the reason to try Free Software, that will also get them away from software freedom when short-term practical advantages are present in non-Free Software. If they're taught that sacrificing their freedoms is ok, that's what they will do when offered bait that shines of short-term practical reasons. I.e., just when we'd most need them to stand firm with us for software freedom, they'd detract, because they haven't got the right message.
It is true that a few of those who start by learning the short-erm practical advantages will see through that and find out about the deeper, long-term practical and ethical reasons. But a majority doesn't. And when the majority doesn't stand for our values, our whole community is vulnerable: we lose, because the network effects, instead of favoring our goals of eliminating the non-Free Software oppression, play against them.
I wish I was just pessimistic, but a social experiment started in 1998 shows just how perverse that is. A group you might be familiar with launched a campaign to promote Free Software on its short-term practical benefits, leaving ethical values out of the picture. It got very popular, and the result is that a lot of software those who subscribe to that ideology produce is not quite Free, and many of them will attack and ridicule those who stand for software freedom.
I'd much rather the Free Software movement had grown slowly but surely, just not as slowly as it does now because of the detrimental effects of that campaign.
FSFLA: Linux kernel is "open core" Posted Nov 12, 2010 3:38 UTC (Fri) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link]
> it sounds as if you believe non-free is some sort of cancer
I don't, and the difference is quite significant.
Cancer is a natural, biological phenomenom. As harmful as it is, it has no will of its own. The damage is not intentional, so it's not unethical, and there's no economic drive for the cancer to spread the harm.
Depriving others of software freedom is an artificial phenomenom. Many who engage in such a harmful practice do so intentionally, so as to obtain an economic advantage, including power over others. That is unethical, and the gained advantages imply it will tend to grow and concentrate power unless it meets strong resistance that renders the unethical behavior disadvantageous.
The Free Software movement is a movement to build up that resistance. Please help us!
|
|||||||||||||