See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From:	 Lutz Horn <lh@lutz-horn.de>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: Is proprietary software a valid option?
Date:	 Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:47:07 +0200
Cc:	 discussion@fsfeurope.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear folks at LWN,

Thanks for publishing my letter regarding your coverage of the Caldera
licensing scheme. To this you added the honour of quoting it as an
example for an opinion 'common among certain types of free software
advocates' in your july, 26th Main Page. Since you take some trouble of
argueing against something you claim can be found in my statement, let me
respond to your editorial.

There are some points in your article that need to be addressed.

1) You start of by asking 'Is it immoral to use proprietary software?'.
Of course, I never asked this question in my original letter. You, too,
are aware of this, since only three paragraphes later you rephrase the
question to 'Is it truly "no valid option"', using my words. Let me
point out that I'm not talking about morals. I restricted myself in
talking about valid or invalid options which is a completely different
issue.

Since, as far as I can see, inside the Free Software community there is
no generally agreed idea about what is morally right or wrong in
everyday live, said community focuses on one goal: Free Software and
ways to further it, increase it's use, etc. Everything that is said and
done about Free Software has to be judged under consideration of this
goal. If something does or doesn't further this goal, it's not moral or
immoral but a valid or invalid option.

2) Regarding the use of proprietary software, you ask 'What, exactly, is
the harm in doing so'. The infliction of actual harm is only one thing
why using proprietary software is no valid option. It is no valid option
since proprietary software keeps people from helping each other, from
learning while using software, and generally keeps them in a state of
dependence. There may be no actual harm done from this but it sure is
against the spirit of Free Software.

3) After restricting yourself to the actual harm done by the use of
proprietary software you cosider the 'biggest fear' which you detect in
proprietary software 'block[ing] the development of a free package'. Of
course this is a major problem but the arguments you present to calm the
fear down are worth considering. I agree with you that there is no need
to discuss this issue.

There are, of course, different problems in the use of proprietary
software which do actual harm to Free Software even though no developer
is discouraged from developing Free Software. If there is no Free
alternative to some proprietary tool the use of this tool does
strengthen it. By increasing the user base of proprietary software users
make it more difficult for late coming Free Software to get a food in
the door. We all know that switching tools is an undertaking not readliy
done. Or is there some other reaseon why people are still using the
proprietary Netscape browsers even though Mozilla is Free and ready to
use?

4) You appease the users of proprietary software by saying that they
need not 'feel an outsider just because the programs they need to get
their work done now are not available under a free license.' In this you
assume that they are being thrown out of the community by the 'Church of
the FSF'. I don't think this is the case. Being a member of the Free
Software community is not a question of conforming to some church rules.
But of course if somebody considers himself a member of the Free
Software community he has to ask himself where his priorities lie. Do
they lie in getting 'their work done' or in working for Free Software.
If they lie in the first, the use of proprietary software may be a valid
option.  If they lie in the second, it is not.

Regards
Lutz Horn
- -- 
Lutz Horn <lh@lutz-horn.de>
For PGP information see header.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Weitere Infos: siehe http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7YvpPzQ+com69o1kRAvNXAJ9slnohfn1aSX7fHnmvthHdbtRNOwCfXQ+u
Xfnmml7UEPXLtdsfm1HEYos=
=WMH4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From:	 Mark Koek <mark@koek.net>
To:	 lwn@lwn.net
Subject: Is it immoral to use proprietary software?
Date:	 Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:13:55 +0200

While I generally appreciate LWN.net's editorials for their clarity 
and insight (although I occasionally disagree with them), today I was 
disappointed to see that you have been unable to resist the 
temptation of joining in all the RMS-bashing that seems to be so 
popular these days.

Aside from the fact that you are making claims that I find difficult 
to believe and are unsubstantiated (the "little fact that Richard 
Stallman and the GNU project developed much of its early code on 
proprietary Unix systems" for example - I would venture that RMS used 
free Berkeley systems in the eighties), the general tone and 
direction of the article reveal a shocking lack of understanding of 
(or worse, lack of respect for) the way Richard Stallman thinks and 
works.

Even though I am on your side where the basic question is concerned 
(I used Netscape when there was no free alternative, and I don't 
think that's morally wrong), you approach the issue not from a moral 
perspective such as the FSF would do, but from an "Open Source", 
"how-do-we-convince-the-managers" viewpoint, which I think is 
entirely wrong.

In fact, your text perfectly illustrates why I agree with Bruce 
Perens that Open Source has had its day, and it's time to talk about 
Free Software again.

RMS takes the moral high ground, certainly, but unlike most people 
who do that he consistently abides by his own rules, at his own 
personal expense. If only because of that, he deserves fairer 
commentary than an editorial concluding that his actions are 
inappropriate and unhelpful. They most certainly are not.


Mark Koek

From:	 "Michael W. Gilbert" <mgilbert@oit.umass.edu>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: In response to "Is it immoral to use proprietary software? "
Date:	 Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:34:13 -0400
Cc:	 Jeremy P Lemieux <vndibere@oit.umass.edu>,
	 Michael W Gilbert <mgilbert@oit.umass.edu>

Dear Editors,

In response to "Is it immoral to use proprietary software? "
http://lwn.net/2001/0726/

It is this writers opinion that an essential freedom is the right to choose
one's software tools, free or proprietary, without the fear of so-called
excommunication. By using, enhancing, contributing to, and spreading the
word about free tools, these free tools will be ameliorated to a level
where they become a real choice, not by virtue of their political status,
but by virtue of their usefulness, quality, and community-oriented support.

To suggest, however, that when no free tools exist, the only moral choice
is to create them and not use proprietary ones, indeed smacks of political
correctness, and will only serve to divide a community that could better be
served by working together wherever possible. Many creators of software,
faced with the reality that the commodity of their daily bread requires
payment at the bakery (no FBF?), have opted to exchange their work for
money so they can eat (and have time to develop free software as
well). While it may be somewhat politically expedient to view this issue in
absolute terms, it is more an issue of continuum, on which one must find a
workable place.

Denying individuals the freedom to come to their own definition of what
this place may be for them, or suggesting that it immoral to do so, in the
name of freedom, strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. The debate is far
more valuable to all parties than is the dogma.

-MWG

MICHAEL Wm. GILBERT  mgilbert@oit.umass.edu
Technology Development and Special Projects
Office of Information Technology (OIT)
Lederle Graduate Research Center A115
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
740 No. Pleasant Street
Amherst, MA  01003-9306
Voice: 413-545-3124   Fax: 413-545-3203

From:	 Paul Sheer <psheer@icon.co.za>
To:	 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: Free software
Date:	 Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:45:06 +0200


I am constantly surrounded by anti-microsoft bigotry
on the one hand, and Free Software Foundation / RMS
bashers on the other, so it is worthwhile presenting
a view that everyone can live with, that holds together
practically, ethically, and philosophically.

In the first place, RMS is not ``wrong'' in his ideals.
Anyone who is asked to paint a utopia, will doubtless
come up with a sharing, socialistic world, however
unattainable it might be in the present. As an ideal,
the Free Software Foundation's essays are mostly correct:
we ultimately want all useful technical information to
be in the public domain, as well as the revocation of all
policies that result in the duplication of human effort.
The less secrets there are, and the more we all
collaborate, the better.

However, it is true in any age that ideals must cope
with the capacities of the population at large. The
assumption that all history is made through political
decisions is not correct: often culture has to evolve
before a political decision is viable. A classic
example is drug abuse: it is my *right* to consume
whatever substance I like. However, removing all drug
controls from the law would result in instant chaos,
so I prefer that drugs stay illegal for the time being.

I suppose this is why the FSF does not call for a law
forcing the release of all source code. Such a law is
probably not practical. They merely try to appeal to
people's ethical responsibility. And there are three
ways a person can respond:

The classic response is denial. In this mode, the person
tries to find some fallacious rebuttal to the arguments
of the FSF. Ultimately, this is self-defeating, since
there is little in the FSF's essays that each of us
does not really want anyway.

The second response is quite rare: complete acceptance
of the ideals, *and* the resolution to put them into
practice.

The third response is the acceptance of the validity
of the ideals, while acknowledging ones inability to
follow because of ones own personal limitations.
That is: "I know I should, but I am to selfish to share."

The last two are responses that make sense. I myself
refuse to release certain of my own work under the
licenses recommended by the FSF for two reasons: First,
I am to selfish; and second, society has not evolved to
the point were it would ultimately be of more practical
benefit to do so---my work has reached a level of quality
that I don't think would be possible unless it were a
proprietary venture. There is nothing wrong with
admitting that people need, at this time in history,
to be competitive and selfish in order to function.

With regard to last weeks front page, the very
juxtaposition of Free and proprietary software does
not make sense. Free software pundits are trying to
create a Free system. Until that goal is entirely met,
the existence of proprietary packages logically poses no
interest to them. Also, there is a tremendous difference
between proprietary free software and proprietary
commercial software.

"...there is no moral _need or purpose_ in trying to
_prevent_ others from using the tools that work best for
them..." Trying to make someone feel guilty about using
proprietary software does not come within the definition
of the word "prevent" in the preceding quote.

There are also several "need or purpose"s that this
sentence erroneously groups together. There are the
needs of a Free Unix system, the need to popularize Free
software, the need for IPOs to get a return on their
investment in Linux, and the needs of the thousands of
non-software companies who now depend on this Free
system.

-paul

Paul Sheer Consulting IT Services . . . Tel . . . +27 21 761 7224
Linux development, cryptography, installations, support, training
http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer . . . . http://rute.sourceforge.net
L I N U X . . . . . . . . . . . .  The Choice of a GNU Generation

From:	 Brad Hards <bhards@bigpond.net.au>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: Article Comment: Linux: The electoral test that pencil and paper meet
	 (I.T Austrailia)
Date:	 Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:32:26 +1000

I noted the LWN coverage of the Software Innovations press release.

You might be interested to know that some of the work on this project is being
done by "big name" open source people, including Andrew Tridgell (aka Mr
Samba), Dave Gibson (orionoco wireless LAN driver), Martin Pool (apache), and
Rusty Russell (netfilter and other gross kernel hacks).

The code is available for public review in CVS, see http://evacs.samba.org/

Brad

From:	 Marshal Newrock <marshal@simons-rock.edu>
To:	 <letters@lwn.net>
Subject: Proprietary Document Formats (PDF's)
Date:	 Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:42:02 -0400 (EDT)

With all the fuss against Adobe, I'd like to point out that there are Free
Software versions of most of their products available.  I'll focus on
Acrobat.  There's quite a few programs I've noticed which will create a
PDF, some from text, some from HTML, doubtless from other formats too,
even dynamically.  What I haven't seen is anything that can replace
Acrobat Capture.

Capture is a part of Acrobat that will convert images scanned as a PDF
into a PDF with text and images.  The OCR works pretty good, and the
resulting document looks the same as the original image.  Perhaps the
biggest feature is it does not convert words it's not sure about, but
leaves them as images of the words, along with information for a suggested
replacement (usually wrong, of course).

Software that does OCR within an image would be extremely helpful.  PDF's
seem easily enough created, so it could save to a PDF, or perhaps also to
an open format.  If there are no open formats suitable (which I don't know
if there are or not), then I'm sure the Free Software community would have
no trouble creating one.  And doubtless it would have a better
encryption/password protection scheme than Adobe's, which I've read can be
gotten around using Ghostscript.

Perhaps there could be an On The Desktop segment about Adobe alternatives.

-- 
Marshal Newrock, Simon's Rock College of Bard
Answers are easy.  It's asking the right question that's hard.

From:	 Jarkko Santala <jake@iki.fi>
To:	 <letters@lwn.net>
Subject: Usage of SSH
Date:	 Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:02:48 +0300 (EET DST)

Hi,

I've just been wondering why every time there is a problem with Secure
Shell from SSH Communications Security Corp (which, believe me, is really
rare), it is so clearly stated that the problem is only in the commercial
product, but when the problem is in an open source implementation of the
protocol, quite a few sites don't bother making the point of specifying
the product. They just talk about SSH.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for open source, but looks like open source
folks are quite good at FUD too.

Annyoed,

	-jake

ps. on the 3.0.0 incident, anyone who has a valid shell for a pseudo-user
is asking for it anyway.