Re: Non-free programs

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

    My opinion is that the GNOME libraries were LGPL'ed for a reason, yet
    visitors to the gnome.org domain should be made very clear which
    software is not Free Software.

The GNOME libraries are GPL'd for a reason, but that reason has
nothing to do with this issue.  It is the same reason that I wrote the
GPL, and the same reason that we applied the LGPL to GNU libc.

The reason we applied the LGPL to GNU libc is this: we decided not to
legally prohibit linking non-free programs with it.  (Prohibiting that
would have put GNU libc at a disadvantage vis-a-vis non-free C
libraries.)

Miguel and I discussed the licensing for GNOME libraries a few years
ago, and we came to a similar conclusion: it was better not to legally
prohibit non-free programs from working with GNOME.  (That would have
given GNOME a disadvantage compared with KDE.)  This reason still
seems to be valid.

The issue here is a completely separate one: whether to recommend
specific non-free programs as solutions to problems.  Saying we won't
sue someone for linking the GNOME libraries into a non-free program is
one thing; actually recommending that non-free program to users is
another matter.

Advertising a program on gnome.org says to the public that the program
is legitimate.  Advertising a non-free program says that using a
non-free program is legitimate.  That's the opposite of what we are
trying to tell them.  The GNU Project can't be successful if GNU
packages tell the public the opposite of what we are trying to say.

Adding a message "This is not free software" would not really change
much, because it would give only lip service to the principle.  The
action of including the program in the list would say that the program
is at legitimate, and that's the message users would get.  Most users
would not even recognize "This is not free software" as a criticism,
because the idea that non-free software is a bad thing is unfamiliar
to them.  (This is why we are working so hard to convey this idea.)
They will assume that the non-free status of the program is mentioned
as a drawback, not as an ethical objection.

Even if you make the message stronger -- such as "This is non-free
software, so we think you shouldn't use it" -- it still won't work,
because actions speak louder than words.  The action of listing the
program says the opposite of those words.

We have to work very hard to introduce the public to the idea that
non-free software is a bad thing.  We have to show we take our own
views seriously, by acting in accord with them.  That's the reason why
GNU packages should not recommend non-free programs.

nWe have had this policy since before there was a World Wide Web, but
clearly we need to carry it out in our web pages as well as in the
software packages themselves.  Please don't tell the public the
opposite of our message.