-----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.