LibrePlanet talk: Mission Statement/Draft
Comments
The mission statement is an important document that ultimately affects Libre Planet's ability to achieve a free software society. If anything is unclear to you, missing, or you think should be removed, please say so here.
Make a difference
Fully-Free Operating Systems
The mission statement says that "groups should only promote operating system distributions that are on the list of fully free distributions". I would ordinarily agree with this idea based on ethical principles. But what should be demonstrated to the average person when using free software is dependent on a single proprietary component, like a binary kernel module (or even a proprietary BIOS as is virtually always the case). I'm not condoning proprietary software, nor am I promoting operating systems with extra proprietary software (such as applications) that isn't necessary for minimum function. As much as I value our ideals, the average person will not simply throw away hardware without having at least the chance to experience free software with the hardware they already have. At the bare minimum, requiring so would endager our ethical appeal. For instance, in some cases Ubuntu (which contains no proprietary applications out-of-the-box) must be used instead of gNewSense because the computer relies on the binary kernel modules included with Ubuntu to boot up. To a lesser extent (because it's not complete core functionality), the same holds true for binary firmware in one's wireless card. I understand why we wouldn't want to promote proprietary operating systems, no matter how little of the system is actually proprietary. But we shouldn't stab ourselves in the foot by alienating ourselves from people who might turn out to be interested in free software, its ethics, and its ideals. --Daradib 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Right -- but the problem here is that in public advocacy, that results in principles being watered down, and we end up advocating compromise before it's actually necessary and in a way that works against the goal of software freedom rather than for it. Of course in those cases when you absolutely need a computer to work you need to do what you need to do in order to get the hardware to work. However, when making statements about what kind of software would be best for people to use, the fully free operating system should always be first. It's possible to do now, when people are buying new or used systems -- even with wireless and 3D video acceleration. The important thing is to first get the values across, to make it clear that the goal is not just to get the computer to work but to get a computer to work in a manner consistent with our freedom, and to explain that computers not working with free software is a function of companies who believe it's okay to subjugate users. This might mean giving up a few features, or it might mean replacing a few components, or buying a system that doesn't run as fast. If we don't emphasize the importance of freedom in these conversations then we aren't doing our job of making it clear that it's more important than convenience. We shouldn't give up our overall approach here just because in some specific cases exceptions will need to be made. --Johns 15:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. You make a very convincing point. I agree that these specific exceptions are a good balance between software freedom and incompatible hardware. Same goes for the resistance to compromise before it's necessary -- in fact it's the reason I admire RMS for sticking to his principles. --Daradib 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
