Name: Guido ran Vossum 2007-09-26 22:47 ID:/qABFRp1
in before tl;dr and GNAA/Lunixx
The freedom that RMS refers to is the user's right to control their own computer and the user's right to help other people through sharing software. Free software is defined in such a way as to allow us to help ourselves (freedoms 0 and 1) and allow us to help others (freedoms 2 and 3).
Non-free software prevents us from :
1) controlling our own computer
Without the right to access the code, we have little control over what the program does to our computer. Without the right to run modifications to the code, we have lose the liberty to control our own computer.
2) helping other people and being good neighbours
Without the right to share software, we cannot be good neighbours. Computer programs are tools that perform tasks. A good neighbour shares his tools with other neighbours. If a neighbour finds a use for a program, we should be allowed to share it with them. Computer programs are digital information. Because of the nature of digital information, it is trivial to make duplicates of sotware. If the software author chooses to prevent users from sharing their software, society loses as society is deprived of the right to be good neighbours. Without the right to share software, we are forced to break the law in order to be good neighbours. But upstanding citizens should not have to live that way; upstanding citizens should have the right to be good neighbours without having to resort to breaking the law.
And this is why we refer to non-free software as evil. We lose our liberty to control our own machines and the liberty to help other people.
The freedom that RMS refers to is the user's right to control their own computer and the user's right to help other people through sharing software. Free software is defined in such a way as to allow us to help ourselves (freedoms 0 and 1) and allow us to help others (freedoms 2 and 3).
Non-free software prevents us from :
1) controlling our own computer
Without the right to access the code, we have little control over what the program does to our computer. Without the right to run modifications to the code, we have lose the liberty to control our own computer.
2) helping other people and being good neighbours
Without the right to share software, we cannot be good neighbours. Computer programs are tools that perform tasks. A good neighbour shares his tools with other neighbours. If a neighbour finds a use for a program, we should be allowed to share it with them. Computer programs are digital information. Because of the nature of digital information, it is trivial to make duplicates of sotware. If the software author chooses to prevent users from sharing their software, society loses as society is deprived of the right to be good neighbours. Without the right to share software, we are forced to break the law in order to be good neighbours. But upstanding citizens should not have to live that way; upstanding citizens should have the right to be good neighbours without having to resort to breaking the law.
And this is why we refer to non-free software as evil. We lose our liberty to control our own machines and the liberty to help other people.