[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:05:09 +0000 Jonathan Roberts <jonathan.roberts.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been thinking a lot about freedom in GNU/Linux. I've come to the > conclusion that it is really the best and most important thing about it > and central to the community element (which I think is fantastic!) as > well. I've been hearing rumours here and there about Ubuntu starting to > include non-free drivers for graphics cards, wireless etc etc by > default; add to that the launchpad system is proprietary. I was > wondering what other people thought about these things and others? I > can't seem to find any significant discussions about it anywhere... 1. Ubuntu have always done this - it was part of the move away from Debian. 2. non-free drivers make it impossible for kernel developers to debug problems that you may report. 3. Many users don't need non-free drivers anyway - despite what they may claim. 4. free drivers only improve when users install them and report the results. 5. Using non-free damages the future of free. That last one will annoy some (Ben?) so let me explain. The only way that free software will continue to be available and *relevant* is if that free software is always being improved. Improvements may come from inspiration but once a package is stable, improvements come principally from bug reports and bugs require users. The more users using the free alternative, the faster that alternative will improve but, by definition, the alternative is initially less functional than the non-free. Those who prioritise selfish concerns (I just want it to work for me) over the future of the free software alternative ignore some of the principles of the free software community - that we help each other. By using a non-free anything in place of a less functional free alternative, you put out the following message: "I don't care about others who may not be able to use the non-free version, now or in the future. My needs are more important than everyone else. I'm hoping that the non-free version will remain available to me but I acknowledge that I have no control over whether the distribution of this non-free package will continue for as long as I need it. If the non-free package goes away or changes to requiring a fee that I can no longer afford, you can expect me to return to the free alternative. I expect that such a return may involve comments of 'I told you so' and promise to graciously accept the humble pie whilst asking others to help me fix my system. I also acknowledge that the people who will help me fix my system are the very people that I previously considered unworthy of my consideration." By definition, non-free is discriminatory - it is non-free because someone, somewhere cannot use it. That person does not have the luxury of the choice and therefore using the non-free version damages that person by reducing the rate of improvement of the free alternative - their only option. Free software, once released, remains available no matter what. The original copyright holder may try to turn it into a proprietary package later but the free source code is available for anyone else to create a fork. This has happened many times in the history of free software and is a powerful disincentive. Conversely, a powerful and well supported free software package deters proprietary developers from restricting their package (cutting off their nose to spite their face). Forks require lots of maintenance and support if they are to remain a relevant alternative to the other arm of the fork. Lots of forked projects die so once forked, a package needs the full support of the community. Choosing non-free is a form of elitism, it is discriminatory and selfish. It is also a form of self-deception because, sooner or later, you will need the free alternative. The only certainty in computing is that proprietary distributors do not stay unchanged for long. Takeovers, bankruptcies, falling sales, any number of external factors beyond your control can conspire to force a proprietary distributor to seek to extract more money from each income stream. This is their duty to their shareholders and employees, no-one can blame them for doing so but it inevitably means that the future of any non-free package is never certain. Through no fault of your own, the provider of the non-free version may be forced to either prevent you from using it or require exorbitant fees to allow you to continue using it. Typically, non-free code is only available from a single distributor or provider whereas free software is available from a range of providers. Of particular note should be that free software usually has multiple levels of provider as well - the upstream developers (say at SourceForge), the distribution maintainers (e.g. Debian/Fedora) and the community at large. Any one of these can step in to provide updates and improvements and because the code is free, these changes propagate to all other providers. Non-free code cannot propagate in this manner - all your eggs are in one hidden basket over which you have absolutely no control. If you care about free software, use free software - all free software. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgptyBkilpjmJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html