Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no wrong to others. You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's not the same as doing wrong.
Thus, when we say all software must be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms, but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy. Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of people's computing. That means letting someone else's server do your own computing tasks. SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree though they often are. Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place.
Take the example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the server, and the server translates it from English to Spanish, say and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of translating is under the control of the server operator rather than the user.
If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator, which will be forced to show it to the state as well— who does that server really serve, after all? When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you.
For your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all. There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly on others to do likewise.
Skype is a clear example: when one person uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. Google Hangouts have the same problem. It is wrong even to suggest using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even on someone else's computer.
Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done properly for the people. This constitutes the computational sovereignty of the state. They must never allow control over the state's computing to fall into private hands.
To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must not do it with proprietary software software under the control of an entity other than the state. And they must not entrust it to a service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since this would be SaaSS. Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case—against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
We do not know whether Apple does likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft. If the government of any other country uses such software, it endangers national security.
Do you want the NSA to break into your government's computers? See our suggested policies for governments to promote free software. Schools and this includes all educational activities influence the future of society through what they teach. Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:. Make use of open-source software OSS. OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that.
It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things. Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, and some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many people are switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free software is not the whole job, just the first step.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it.
This is why nonfree software which Qt was when it first became popular , and partially nonfree operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. For example, one IBM announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said this:. As is common in the open source community, users of the … technology will also be able to collaborate with IBM…. We expect schools to teach students basic facts and useful skills, but that is only part of their job.
The most fundamental task of schools is to teach good citizenship, including the habit of helping others. In the area of computing, this means teaching people to share software. You must show the source code to the class, in case someone wants to learn. Therefore bringing nonfree software to class is not permitted, unless it is for reverse-engineering work. Of course, the school must practice what it preaches: it should bring only free software to class except objects for reverse-engineering , and share copies including source code with the students so they can copy it, take it home, and redistribute it further.
Teaching the students to use free software, and to participate in the free software community, is a hands-on civics lesson. It also teaches students the role model of public service rather than that of tycoons. All levels of school should use free software. If you have a relationship with a school —if you are a student, a teacher, an employee, an administrator, a donor, or a parent— it's your responsibility to campaign for the school to migrate to free software.
If a private request doesn't achieve the goal, raise the issue publicly in those communities; that is the way to make more people aware of the issue and find allies for the campaign. We defend the rights of all software users. There are also other ways to contact the FSF.
Free Software Supporter :. Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software by Richard Stallman Educational activities, including schools of all levels from kindergarten to university, have a moral duty to teach only free software.
Set language.
0コメント