He is best known for his efforts in GPL enforcement,[7] as the creator of FSF's license list, and as original author of the Affero General Public License. He has long been a proponent for non-profit structures for FLOSS development, and leads efforts in this direction through the Software Freedom Conservancy. He is a recipient of the 2012 O'Reilly Open Source Award.

Excerpt from the first part of the piece:

In this philosophical essay, I explore the question: “When (if at all) is it ethically and morally acceptable to use proprietary software in the production and/or improvement of urgently needed copylefted FOSS?”

The question presents a complex conundrum. I attempt herein to rigoriously examine it through both a priori ethical analysis and a posteriori (and folksy) consideration of my personal experience and the shared experiences of the early software freedom movement.

I surprised myself at the outcome of my analysis. I conclude that under some circumstances (of which we have already witnessed in key historical examples), use of proprietary software by FOSS contributors to create/improve FOSS becomes a moral imperative. And, that imperitive often supersedes the moral imperative to avoid using that proprietary software.

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

The answer is and should always be "never" if the possibility of using FOSS is available either currently or by hard work to bring it into existence - however, there are cases where some software is not available in any other capacity and offers a service that is otherwise locked down. So we deal with the necessary evils where we must until we no longer have to.

[+] garbage_world@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sure.

Using community-vetted software doesn't have any security or privacy benefits over proprietary.

Neither will proprietary software arbitrarily be able to remove features, lock out certain users or raise prices dramatically.

Would you rather buy vetted cruelty-free foods or not?

There's surely no benefits in doing so.

What about clothing?

Would you rather buy a shirt that has some guarantee of not using underpaid or child labor?

What about energy?

Would you rather your electricity comes from a local coal plant poisoning you and others with its toxic fumes, or from a solar+hydro mix?

What about furniture?

Woukd you rather get an item made from recycled materials and with well-paid labour, made locally and to high quality or get the not-so-cheap alternative from IKEA?

All the options above are morally superior. And so is FOSS software.

And there is a multitude of reasons.

But there's two things I'd like to point out right away, regardless of FOSS specificalky

sometimes, these pros from above don't even come at a higher price.

Hell, oftentimes they're cheaper (for example, storebrand is vastly more moral than Nestle and it's cheaper).

There's a positive-feedback loop regarding standards.

First standards don't exist formally and any "standard" (quality or otherwise) is pure coincidence. Pay is high because the market said so. Quality is high because machines are good enough. Privacy of our maiking list is high because our director chose to use a free (FOSS) local app instead of a paid cloud service.

Then ad-hoc (informal) standards form. Companies voluntarily do things in order to stay competitive. For example most every site uses hashing and salting, meaning your passwords are pretty safe.

Then real standards form. Still voluntary, but formal. They're still voluntary, but you can't half-ass things anymore abd say you did them. You've gotta meet real demands.

Then these standards get made a requirement by the legislature, so Nestle actually has to do some ethics now.

This exact same progression is present in multiple otherwise disjunct domains. Labor rights, pollution, quality standards. And yes, software freedom is one of them.

But what even is software freedom?

It's the ability to vett code. The ability to switch providers. The ability to play a game after servers shut down. The ability to export data. The ability to not pay an hourly rate of $15 for your dial-up use. Interoperability. And a lot of other things.

Free as in freedom is much more than gratis (free as in no need for money).

Free software is the one that pushes this feedback loop forward the most.

And that's why it's a moral imperative.

Ironically, it's free software that often times creates competition (and therefore lowers the price of) proprietary software.

It sets quality standards. Proprietary can't be that worse than free - people'd find out soon enough.

It acts as competition (albeit oftebtimes unequal).

It expands accessibility by giving a gratis alterbative.

It drives change. Much more so than proprietary bullshit.

Using FOSS software isn't easy in this day and age. But without it, using proprietary software would be way, way harder than the FOSS from decades ago.

No Internet/WorldWideWeb. No networking. No encryption.

Most of the infrastructure is FOSS. It's too expensive to make well even for the big players - some 25% of Windows (as in the bloated mess) is made up of free software. 90% of Edge is.

You're using free software even if you're not trying to much more than you realize.

And that's the result of small victories from ages ago. Victories which set standards and expectations.

Maximizing your use of FOSS software maximizes the amount of these victories. It speeds them up.

And it makes a difference way bigger than you may realize.

[–] fxdave@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

I agree, mandating however is