<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>A really good discussion from the outgoing FSF director:</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/spring/thinking-clearly-about-corporations">https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/spring/thinking-clearly-about-corporations</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>For software to be considered free, its license must allow for
commercial use and redistribution. Yet, free software as a social
movement is to a large extent a struggle against for-profit
corporate
control of our lives. </p>
<p>Instead of telling companies they are not welcome in free
software, we
say they are welcome if they follow the ethical principles -- the
Four
Freedoms. In our engagement with them, we see both positive and
negative impacts. We also see some parts of the community being
overly
solicitous of corporate support, and other parts describing even
seemingly positive actions as necessarily part of a long con to
eventually extinguish free software.</p>
<p>We need to think clearly -- somewhere between these extremes --
about
corporate involvement, neither falling over ourselves to invite
it,
nor being so endlessly suspicious that we miss out on valuable
contributions and ultimately fail to change the practices of a
significant sector of global society.</p>
<p>Clear thinking begins with seeing for-profit corporations for
what
they are: for-profit organizations. They are not individuals. A
company's behaviors can change dramatically, not just from change
in
the individuals they employ, but also from changes in leadership,
ownership, or business circumstances. </p>
<p>These are not hypothetical concerns. In free software, many eyes
are
now on Red Hat, to see if its behavior toward free software will
change as a result of being bought by IBM. We saw Redis Labs
switch
some of its software from a free license to a nonfree one which
ironically prohibits commercial re-use. We've seen Google in the
past
decide to withhold the source code for Android. We've seen
Microsoft
switch from publicly calling free software a cancer to saying "We
are
all in on open source."</p>
<p>Companies can commit valuable resources to actions that benefit
the
free software movement. They can hire developers, sponsor events,
fund
advocacy and education, and provide infrastructure. Individuals
can
convince their employers to release code under a free license, and
to
distribute it with their products. They can even persuade the
company
to pursue certification under the FSF's <a
href="https://ryf.fsf.org/">Respects Your Freedom program</a>.</p>
<p>These contributions are meaningful. The challenge is, how do we
realize them while avoiding the ways corporations can hurt free
software? We need to avoid financial dependency, keep our
standards
high, and rely on a solid legal framework rather than vague trust.</p>
<p>Avoiding financial dependency means making sure our operations as
free
software projects and organizations won't be seriously harmed by a
corporation withdrawing its support due to a disagreement or an
ownership change. As an example, while we appreciate and make
productive use of all the direct corporate patron support we
receive
at the FSF, in our last audited financial year, it was less than
3% of
our total revenue.</p>
<p>To keep standards high, free software projects and organizations
should be conservative in what we offer in return for
contributions.
As with any donation, specific public recognition and appreciation
can
make sense. But selling conference keynotes, for example, takes
the
interaction out of the realm of a donation and makes it a
transaction.
Plus, when some events offer the moon in exchange for
sponsorships, it
puts more pressure on other events to do so.</p>
<p>Relying on a solid legal framework means relying on copyleft, and
on
explicit, enforceable statements about who holds relevant rights
when
a contribution is made by the employee of a company. The GNU
General Public License (GPL) has
enabled decades of constructive engagement, because it requires
companies to give back improvements they distribute, under the
same
terms to everyone, and its terms don't change even with new
company
leadership or after an acquisition. For certain GNU packages, the
FSF
gets additional assurances, in the form of copyright assignments
and
employer disclaimers, to help make sure we can effectively uphold
these license terms according to the Principles of
Community-Oriented
GPL Enforcement, and can protect all of the program's users from
patent or other ownership claims by contributors' employers.</p>
<p>We should stay watchful and firm on these points. Over the last
year,
I have seen firsthand multiple cases of Google employees
encouraging
projects to relax their license from the Affero General Public
License (AGPL), because of Google's
wrong-headed policy forbidding any involvement by employees with
AGPL
projects. If you receive pressure like this from any company, stay
strong and explain how copyleft is in the best interest of all
contributors to the project (also, tell us your story at
<a href="mailto:info@fsf.org">info@fsf.org</a>).</p>
<p>A person is capable of moral commitments outside of legal
agreements,
but accountability for companies works differently. This position
isn't based on conspiracy, or on assumptions about corporate
employees. It is based on relating to for-profit companies as the
kind
of entity they are. If we avoid dependency, keep our standards
high,
and ensure the terms of our work together are copyleft, we can
edge
the corporate sector ever closer to fully embracing free software,
which will in turn help us move all sectors of society in that
direction, securing freedom and autonomy for all.</p>
<p><em>On a personal note, I'll be finishing my term as FSF's
executive
director before the next issue of the Bulletin is published, so
this
will be my last article. It's been an honor to appear here, to
have
had this chance to contribute to important ongoing conversations
in
this community. We'll be publishing details about the transition
to a
new executive director on fsf.org. Please continue supporting
the work
of the FSF's incredible staff, some highlights of which are
described
in the rest of this issue -- and all the future issues to come!</em></p>
<em></em>
</body>
</html>