Are we teaching others to value software freedom for its own sake?

[Eric Feliksik]

J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> I strongly recommend reading 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html because it 
> has great responses to every issue raised here.  I'll attempt to 
> paraphrase it here, adding in my own experience along the way.
> 
> David Marsh wrote:
> 
>> They'll ask: "How come these apps are gratis-free?"
>> They'll learn: "Because a community of developers have volunteered their
>> time towards developing these apps, precisely because they have the 
>> liberty-freedom to share, learn from and contribute to the program code."
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see that you don't believe that learning about software 
> freedom is automatic, that it must be taught; the free software 
> community must engage in this discussion far more often than it does.  

J.B., I wholeheartedly agree, and I am very pleased to read your 
thoughtful mail. (I also want to repeat here that I really appreciate 
the attitude of Ubuntu towards freedom, too. But so many pragmatic users 
*do* want to preach for 'Linux' software, yet are reluctant to mention 
and support fundamental freedoms where it's at stake.)

Thanks.

> But I wonder how many people actually teach users about software 
> freedom?  I'd love to see more freedom talk, but it's rare and often 
> dismissed even amongst those that appreciate the fruits of software 
> freedom.  There are many groups eager to adopt language to frame issues 
> in such a way so that software freedom never comes up.
> 
> I see lots of talk about increased features, better security, lower 
> cost, and faster development.  I have no problem with these qualities, 
> but many eyes making bugs shallow is not always true and not why free 
> software is important.  That phrase is attributed to one of the founders 
> of the open source movement, a movement which was formed in part to get 
> away from discussing software freedom because of discomfort talking 
> about freedom to businesses.
> 
> Any proprietor can tempt users by reducing price.  Microsoft is one 
> proprietor of many, and I don't want to give the impression that the 
> free software movement is about challenging Microsoft.  But Microsoft 
> has some convenient examples to point to.  Remember the Microsoft memo 
> ("Lose no sale to Linux[sic]" or words to that effect)?  What about the 
> recent US$1 cost of switching from an illicit copy of Windows to a 
> legally licensed copy?  How many large seat clients have disingenuously 
> threatened to switch to some GNU/Linux distribution because they wanted 
> Microsoft to reduce the per-seat price?
> 
> My point is that unless users know about software freedom and learn to 
> value it for its own sake, users will have no reason to reject 
> proprietary software.  People cannot value what they do not know.
> 
>> Yes, M$ will in time produce an improved version of their browser, but
>> the switchees know its history, why should they risk being "fooled
>> again" when by then they'll be happy with their FLOSS alternative?
> 
> 
> For the same reason most Windows users run the insecure MSIE right now: 
> users have been taught to value convenience and MSIE is more convenient 
> for Microsoft Windows users than any other web browser.  Most of the 
> time, MSIE doesn't fail in obvious ways to non-technical users.  The 
> ways in which it fails are ways technical users appreciate: 
> non-compliance with web standards, not supporting cross-platform free 
> software media formats, etc.  But users have not been taught to value 
> these things.  They've been taught that these matters are best left to 
> the technical users, the web developers, and programmers.  Users have 
> not been taught to value software freedom for its own sake.  Hence, they 
> have no reason to reject MSIE.
> 
> As much as Firefox advocates flaunt growing popularity, the latest MSIE 
> offers some of the same technical features Firefox does.  When the new 
> MSIE is released, I think Firefox's popularity will drop and MSIE will 
> remain the most popular web browser.
> 
> The Mozilla Foundation doesn't do the work to effectively combat 
> Microsoft's effort because the Mozilla Foundation champions their 
> software with a poor argument--"choice".  Choice doesn't teach users to 
> value software freedom, choice doesn't deliver software freedom, and 
> (with regard to Firefox and the Mozilla Suite) users had a choice of web 
> browsers before Mozilla contributed anything.  MSIE, Opera, and Netscape 
> Navigator.  Choice only requires two options, but there were three.  And 
> all three are proprietary.
> 
>> They also know that because something is liberty-free it will also
>> *always* be gratis-free, and that can be a real comfort to those on low
>> budgets.
> 
> 
> Cost and freedom are independent of one another.  There's no guarantee 
> of finding a zero-cost copy of a free software program.  Incompatible or 
> patent-encumbered proprietary derivatives of non-copylefted free 
> software can become more popular than the free software they are built 
> on.  If we teach users to value software freedom for its own sake, they 
> might realize that it is advantageous to them to pay for free software 
> so that more money can be put toward free software development and 
> political organizing to benefit the free software community.
>