|
Size: 34842
Comment: copy English into Spanish
|
← Revision 18 as of 2010-02-05 03:59:33 ⇥
Size: 22624
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = FLISOL Libre (Texto original) = == Free Software philosophy == === What is Free Software? === Free Software is software that respects 4 essential freedoms: 0. the freedom to run the software for any purpose, whenever you wish. If someone limits how or when you can run the software, or what you can do with it, you experience moral and financial harm. 1. the freedom to study the software, and adapt it such that it does what you wish. You need source code to do this. If you cannot study the software, you can never be sure it doesn't do things you don't want it to do, or that it does correctly what it claims to do, so you may experience moral and financial harm. If you cannot adapt the software to your evolving needs, either it becomes useless or you must stop your needs from evolving, so you experience moral and financial harm. 2. the freedom to distribute the software as you have received it to whoever you wish, and to publish it, whenever you wish. If you are prohibited from sharing the software, your community is morally and financially harmed, and thus so are you, because one of the foundations of life in society is sharing. If you cannot charge for distribution, then you can only do it at your own expense, so you and your community are morally and financially harmed. 3. the freedom to improve the software and distribute or publish your modifications, whenever you wish, such that you can contribute your improvements to your community. If you cannot do so, your community is morally and financially harmed, and thus so are you. If you are not free to keep your private changes to yourself, you suffer financially, for you must distribute them at your own expenses, and morally, because this freedom was turned into an obligation. You need source code to improve the software. If any of these freedoms is substantially limited for you, the Software is non-Free for you. For example, if law requires you to obtain permission from someone in order to enjoy certain freedoms, and the permission is denied, the Software is non-Free for you. If you enter an agreement with someone, and conditions in the agreement prevent you from enjoying certain freedoms, the Software is non-Free for you. === Unethical and Immoral behavior === Whoever chooses to deny you permissions, or to impose restrictions, such that you are denied substantial enjoyment of the freedoms, causes you moral and financial harm. But harming someone with intent to cause harm, or with awareness but disregard for the caused harm, is unethical. Therefore, disrespecting any of the four essential freedoms for software users is harmful and unethical. The fundamental and nearly-universal moral principle known as the golden rule establishes that you should treat others as you would like to be treated. An act that brings more harm than benefit to others, as perceived by themselves, is immoral if it doesn't bring a similar balance of harm and benefit to the perpetrator, as perceived by himself. A community protects itself and its members from harm through justice, a process that seeks to discourage unethical behavior and to restore moral balance, such that those who bring harm onto others are held accountable for their intentions and the consequences of their acts. Unethical behavior should be discouraged, because an aggression requires the victim to choose between accepting the harm and seeking justice. Seeking justice requires additional effort from the victim and from the community, i.e., further harm for both, which is unfair. Accepting the harm is clearly also unfair. However, if the aggression brings more benefit than harm to the perpetrator, it is also immoral, and accepting it indirectly harms the entire community, because it amounts to incentive for the perpetrator to repeat the aggression onto others. Therefore, the fairest and least harmful outcome is that in which the aggression is avoided. === Deciding whether to use non-Free Software === That who harms others by imposing restrictions that render Software they use non-Free most often do so in order to obtain benefits out of the restrictions, such as being paid more royalties, avoiding competition, inducing exclusive dependencies and even growing a user base through network effects. Since the aggressor gets benefit while the victim is harmed, the aggression is not only unethical, but also immoral. Unfortunately, seeking justice for such aggressions is impossible under laws that permit them. If you accept the harm imposed on you, you also harm your community. Therefore the alternative that is least harmful to your community is to avoid the aggression, i.e., to reject the non-Free Software through which the aggression would be perpetrated. Rejecting non-Free Software may require additional effort to live with limitations in Free alternatives, effort to create or improve the alternatives, and even refraining from doing what the software would be used for. All of these may translate into harm for you, but if you decide to reject it, you're always making a morally correct decision, because this decision doesn't harm anyone else. However, using non-Free Software may provide some benefit for you and your community. Finding out how the balance between harm and benefit to the community compares with the balance to you, if you should choose to accept non-Free Software, may provide you with additional morally correct alternatives, but this requires deep understanding of the benefit to your community and yourself that you expect to achieve through the software, and the harm to your community and yourself out of using the software, accepting its restrictions, spreading them and even paying for the privilege, which makes the aggressor more powerful. Only someone with deep understanding of the moral and ethical aspects of this decision, taking into account the Free Software philosophy, can properly evaluate the harms, and only someone who deeply understands what you may reasonably expect to achieve through the use of the software can properly evaluate the benefits. Someone in the latter group, without the former knowledge, will likely be unaware of the harm to the community, thus regarding the acceptance of non-Free Software as a win-win situation, even after taking into account the harm onto you, out of freedom deprivation. But the lack of understanding about the harm to the community is very likely to drive to an immoral decision that supports the acceptance of non-Free Software. Conversely, someone in the former group, without the latter knowledge, may worry too much about the harm to the community and the most obvious benefits to you, the user, and conclude that the only morally correct decision is to reject the non-Free Software. Without taking into account benefits to the community, this may be a sub-optimal moral decision. However, being too optimistic about benefits to the community, such as assuming the benefits to you automatically extends to the entire community, and expecting such overestimated benefits to offset the harm to the community, may lead to the incorrect conclusion that accepting the non-Free Software would be morally correct. Therefore, being conservative as to benefits to the community is strongly recommended. You, the user, are probably best qualified to evaluate benefits to yourself and to the community out of using a piece of non-Free Software, even though you are likely to overestimate the expected benefits before actually trying the software. Someone with deep knowledge of the philosophy is probably best qualified to evaluate the harm to you and the community out of using that piece of non-Free Software. Only someone with both qualifications can evaluate them all, to tell whether your intended use of the non-Free Software could qualify as an exception to the general rule. So, in order to reach an informed and moral decision, you could tell someone else who understands the philosophy better than you what the expected use of the software is, and how you expect this to benefit you and teh community, such that this person can make an informed recommendation taking all the benefits and harms into account. An alternative is for the person who understands the philosophy to teach it to you, such that you can make infomed decisions from that point on, and even pass on the philosophy to others. Someone with knowledge about software engineering, the expected use of the software and the mechanics of Free Software development may recommend even superior moral choices, such as investing in the development of Free Software so as to satisfy the expected use case, at some cost and benefit for you, and no harm and much benefit to the community. If you can afford the cost, by yourself or sharing it with others, this is always a morally superior to accepting non-Free Software. === Distributing non-Free Software === If you've ever accepted non-Free Software, you may find yourself in a moral dilemma when a friend asks you for a copy. You might be tempted to apply the same reasoning that you used to decide whether to accept the software in the first place, on behalf of the potential recipient. But this reasoning is not a perfect fit for this very different situation, because it fails to take into account your role. One important moral issue is that, when you distribute the non-Free Software to someone else, the harm out of deprivation of freedoms moves to the opposide side in your moral balance: accepting the restrictions is no longer your own sacrifice, it's a sacrifice the other gets to make. On the other hand, sharing and solidarity are important moral values to practice, and they were not applicable in your decision about accepting non-Free Software, but they are in the case of distributing it. However, sharing non-Free Software is always harmful, almost always immoral, and quite often unethical. When the non-Free Software does not permit redistribution, you have to decide between disappointing your friend, which is immoral, or disrespecting this restriction, so as to help your friend, which is unethical and illegal. But harming that who harms you, without escalating the harm nor taking personal advantage, is not immoral. So it appears that the only morally correct choice for this dilemma is illegal, and only legal choice is immoral. Therefore, you should avoid getting into it. There are two ways to avoid it: don't have friends, or don't have non-Free Software. Removing the restriction against redistribution takes out the unethical and illegal considerations from the above, which might get you to think that sharing is an obviously correct moral decision, but this would be setting aside the harm onto the recipient and many other factors that affect the community. Redistributable non-Free Software is a lesser aggression than prohibiting redistribution, but it is an aggression on you and your community nevertheless. Positive feedback to unethical restrictions on studying and adapting the software, often related with limiting functionality of hardware or avoiding competition, should still be avoided. So, you should take into account that the recipient may not have the same knowledge you do as to the ethical and moral issues involved. It is very important to take into account not only the direct harms and benefits of your distribution, but also that of the recipient's passing it on. If you don't have reasons to believe that the recipient is going to take into consideration the moral and ethical implications of further redistribution, then the harm to society that ensues is your resposibility: it goes against your moral balance. It is like starting a fire without precautions to make sure it remains under control. You must not disregard the harm that can be brought to the community as a consequence of distributing non-Free Software to someone who's not prepared to evaluate the harmful consequences of accepting it, let alone to pass on the knowledge needed to make such decisions before passing it on. Without this knowledge, the non-Free Software is likely to spread exponentially, its acceptance is likely to influence similar decisions pertaining to other programs, to the point of altering market dynamics as to users' choices of hardware for software to run on, availability of such choices and even making it difficult to spread the knowledge needed to make informed moral choices in this regard. If you make your decisions based solely on harm and benefits to the recipients and the community, under the reasoning applied to decide whether to accept non-Free Software, you fail to take into account the harm to the community that the recipients may cause as a consequence of your own choice to give them the software. Disregarding such a great harm will very often make a very harmful decision appear to be morally acceptable. If you can't determine whether the recipient is capable of making informed moral decisions as to whether or not to accept non-Free Software, and whether or not to further distribute it, you are better advised to take the conservative approach of bounding the harm that may ensue: try to pass on the knowledge needed to make both kinds of informed decisions, and try to make sure it is going to be taken into account before you pass on the software. Then, even if the software is obtained from another source, it is more likely that it will be handled in a moral way. === General recommendations === As a general rule of thumb, accepting non-Free Software is bad, but distributing it to someone who wouldn't hesitate before accepting it and passing it on is much worse. In other words, to us closer to the goal of the Free Software Movement, of enabling anyone who wishes to live in digital freedom to do so, don't accept non-Free Software, and, if you do, don't offer it to anyone who would accept it. [[BR]] == What is supposed to happen in FLISOL == * Promote the Free Software philosophy explain and distribute copies of the text above * Promote software freedom encourage participants to pursue freedom, reject non-Free Software, and pursue ethical and moral behavior, for the sake of society * Install Free Software give the good example of sharing, solidarity and moral behavior * Help participants make informed decisions if their computer won't work fully without non-Free Software, help them see the pros and cons of accepting it and, if you conclude an is justified for a participant, teach her how to install it, but encourage her to experiment complete freedom for a bit * Prefer operating systems that do not necessarily install non-Free Software if there are variants that install non-Free Software that can't be removed, and variants that install only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed without reason * Prefer operating systems that install only Free Software by default if there are variants that install non-Free Software unless you're careful, and variants that don't, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed by accident * Give preference to 100% Free operating systems if there are variants that contain non-Free Software, and variants that contain only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that, if you participant asks for a copy to install later, you don't have to be concerned about the legality and morality of copying. == What is not supposed to happen in FLISOL == * Do NOT install non-redistributable non-Free Software Don't ever install a non-Free operating system, non-Free applications, etc. FLISOL does not encourage you to break the law, even when that would be the only morally correct thing to do. It's best if you don't even have them around, to avoid moral dilemmas. * AVOID installing redistributable non-Free Software If you conclude an exception is called for, and you decide to help a participant copy non-Free drivers or firmware from another operating system, download and install it off the internet, etc, make sure the participant realizes it's non-Free Software, and understands the moral reasons why the exception is justified, such that it doesn't get generalized incorrectly. * Do NOT take the initiative of installing non-Free Software This may confuse participants as to what is Free Software and what isn't, and trivializing the acceptance of non-Free Software plays against everyone's freedom. We have to make sure that, if participants get Free Software installed in their computers, they know it, they understand it is an exception, why the exception is justified, and why they should try to avoid the need for such exceptions in their next computer. == Lista de componentes privativos que se instalan por omisión en: == === Debian === |
= FLISOL Libre = Original en inglés: == An apology to software users == I'm sorry that I harmed you. I didn't mean to, but now I realize that I did, so I owe you an apology. I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from running it in some ways. I didn't see a problem with that at first, and I even recommended that software to others. But then, one day, I upgraded my computer, and I couldn't run the software any more. I had to keep the old computer around, just to be able to access the information I'd created with that software, and to keep using the software and creating more information with it. If I installed it on the new computer, I could have to pay hefty fines, and even go to jail. I shouldn't have accepted these conditions, they have harmed me. I shouldn't have recommended the software, for it harmed others, including you. I shouldn't have shared files saved in a format that only this non-Free program could open, for it encouraged others to fall in the trap. Anyone who paid for the non-Free software, or recommended others to use it, offered more victims to that who ultimately caused us this harm, rewarding the aggression and further empowering the aggressor. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm sorry that I caused you this harm. I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from studying it and adapting it to suit my needs. I thought I didn't care how it worked, as long as it worked. But one day, I wanted to write another program that accessed the information I had saved with the non-Free program, and I realized I didn't know how it saved the information, and I couldn't find out. Another day, my needs changed and I wanted a program to do something in a slightly different way. One day, it was about computations performed by the non-Free program I used. Another day, it was about controlling peripherals of my computer in a better way. Yet another, it was about fixing an error in the non-Free program. But then, I realized I didn't have permission to modify the non-Free program. And, even if I did, I didn't have the source code, so I couldn't modify the non-Free program even if I had the skills and the permission. I couldn't even study it, to learn how it worked and then write another program that did what I needed. I realized our aggressor wanted me to remain ignorant, dependent and helpless, and I regretted my decision to accept these conditions. But at that time, I'd already recommended the non-Free program to others, and they had also become dependent and helpless, further empowering the aggressor. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm sorry that I caused you this harm. I also accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from copying it and distributing copies to others. When a friend asked me for a copy of the software, I found myself in a moral dilemma. If I helped my friend, I'd be breaking an agreement I'd entered, and also breaking the law. If I complied with the agreement, I'd disappoint my friend. I realized the prohibitions were selfish, greedy and anti-social; that the moral value of solidarity is more important than abiding by an unjust agreement, backed up by unjust laws designed to empower our aggressors: I realized I shouldn't ever accept software that I couldn't share with my friends. But by then, I'd already recommended the non-Free Software to others, and they might have accepted the conditions. If you ever asked someone for a copy of such software, and your friend disappointed you out of fear from the aggressor, my recommendation may have indirectly caused it. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you and your friends. I'm sorry that I caused you and them this harm. Furthermore, I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from improving the software and distributing my improvements to others. Some programs, I couldn't improve because I was prohibited from modifying the program, or because I couldn't obtain the source code needed to make changes. In other cases, I actually received the source code, and I could address my own needs. However, when I found out some of my friends had the same needs, I realized our aggressor had prohibited me from helping them: our aggressor opposed solidarity and even a free market: it demanded a monopoly on providing improvements to others. But by the time I realized this, I'd already recommended the non-Free Software to others. It is possible that you and your friends, who are prohibited from helping each other, are using it as an indirect consequence of my recommendations. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you and your friends. I'm sorry that I caused you and them this harm. I apologize for this harm, and I beg for your understanding, compassion and mercy. When I recommended these programs to others, I didn't know I was empowering our aggressor. Even after I learned it, sometimes I was fooled into buying products that would only work if I accepted these unacceptable prohibitions, and sometimes, when I realized the requirements, it was too late to return the product for a refund, to avoid empowering the aggressor. At other times, I just couldn't resist the temptation of the convenience the non-Free Software would provide me with, or I fooled myself thinking I'd somehow be able to make up for all the harm. Please understand that I'm a victim, not an aggressor. However, the aggression I endorsed, intentionally or not, harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm very sorry that I caused you so much harm. Now, it would be just fair if you were to cause me just as much harm, doing to me the same things I did to you. I'm at your mercy. But please remember that the harm I caused you was unintentional, or at least under the illusion that I could make up for it. I'm guilty, but there was no bad faith. If you were to do the same things to me, just to get even, the willful intent behind your revenge would make your acts much worse than mine. Besides, your revenge would harm others, just like my acts did. They don't deserve to be harmed more just because I'm indebted to you. Therefore, I beg you to not do to me what I did to you. Please forgive me, and avoid making the mistakes that I did. Please try to always choose Free Software, that respects your four essential software freedoms: (0) to run the program however you wish, (1) to study the source code and change it to do whatever you wish, (2) to copy the program and distribute and publish the copies when you wish, and (3) to improve the program and distribute and publish your improvements when you wish, and to not do any of these things if you don't wish to. Please try to always choose hardware that won't require or induce you or others to accept non-Free Software. Please don't empower our aggressors, and resist as much as you can the disrespect and abuse that they impose on us with non-Free Software. Please don't recommend non-Free Software to others, especially if they don't know how much harm they can cause with it, to themselves and to others, including you and me. Please forgive me, don't seek revenge. == Recommendations for FLISOL organizers == === Promote the Free Software philosophy === Explain and distribute copies of the text above. === Promote software freedom === Encourage participants to pursue freedom, reject non-Free Software, and pursue ethical and moral behavior, for the sake of society. === Install Free Software === Give the good example of sharing, solidarity and moral behavior. === Help participants make informed decisions === If their computer won't work fully without non-Free Software, help them see the pros and cons of accepting it. If you conclude an exception is justified for a participant, teach her how to install it, but encourage her to experiment complete freedom for a bit. Also explore the possibility of installing Free Software on the pre-existing operating system. === Prefer distributions that can be installed without non-Free Software === If there are variants that install non-Free Software that can't be removed, and variants that install only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed undesirably. === Prefer distributions that install only Free Software by default === If there are variants that install non-Free Software unless you're careful, and variants that don't, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed by accident. === Give preference to 100% Free distributions === If there are variants that contain non-Free Software, and variants that contain only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that, if the participant asks for a copy to install later, you don't have to be concerned about the legality and morality of copying. === Do NOT install non-redistributable non-Free Software === Don't ever install such a non-Free operating system, non-Free applications, etc. FLISOL does not encourage you to break the law, even when that would be the only morally correct thing to do. It's best if you don't even have them around, to avoid moral dilemmas. === AVOID installing redistributable non-Free Software === If you conclude an exception is called for, and you decide to help a participant copy non-Free drivers or firmware from another operating system, download and install it off the internet, etc, make sure the participant realizes it's non-Free Software, and understands the moral reasons why the exception is justified, such that it doesn't get generalized incorrectly. === Do NOT take the initiative of installing non-Free Software === This may confuse participants as to what is Free Software and what isn't, and trivializing the acceptance of non-Free Software plays against everyone's freedom. We have to make sure that, if participants get Free Software installed in their computers, they know it, they understand it is an exception, why the exception is justified, and why they should try to avoid the need for such exceptions in their next computer. == Examples of interactions between user and organizer == Some are in line with the philosophy and the spirit of FLISOL, some aren't. Guess which. === The solicitous organizer === U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me? O: Sure! === The conscious user === U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me? O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society? U: Yeah, I'm going to make up to society with the work I intend to do using this program, and I don't intend to pass it on to anyone who doesn't understand these issues. O: Ok, then I will make an exception and teach you how to install it. But please get in touch with the distributor and let them know how unhappy you are about their aggression to our community. === The conscious organizer === U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me? O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society? U: What do you mean? O: Please read this (or insert long conversation here) and let me know if you still think installing it is a good idea. === The confused user === U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me? O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society? U: What do you mean? O: Oh, nevermind, this really cool distro here will install it automatically. == Recommendations about software distributions == === gNewSense === GNU/Linux general-purpose operating system based on Ubuntu, but committed to being 100% Free Software, leading the efforts of removing segments of sourceless binaries disguised as source code, and portions of non-Free Software from packages widely regarded as Free Software. Web site, translations and mailing lists in Spanish have strong participation from Latin Americans.<br/> http://www.gnewsense.org/ === UTUTO XS === Independent GNU/Linux general-purpose operating systems, the first (?) with a public commitment to distribute only Free Software, available in optimized builds for several variants of x86 and x86_64. International effort started in Latin America.<br/> http://www.ututo.org/ === Musix GNU+Linux === Independent GNU/Linux multimedia operating system, committed to being 100% Free Software. International effort started in Latin America, with participation from speakers of Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese and various other languages.<br/> http://musix.org.ar/en/index.html === BLAG Linux and GNU === GNU/Linux general-purpose operating system based on Fedora, but committed to being 100% Free Software.</br> http://www.blagblagblag.org/ === OpenBSD === Berkeley Sofware Distribution variant that contains only Free Software. Installing and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software, but please recommend users to beware of the ports collection maintained by this project, because some of the packages that can be installed from it are non-Free Software, and they're not clearly marked. === Debian GNU/Linux === The first (?) GNU/Linux distribution project to build software freedom into its mission. Installing and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software, but please recommend users to beware of the non-free repository maintained by this project: it doesn't contain only documentation and other non-software packages that don't meet their guidelines; it also contains non-Free Software. === Gobuntu === A variant of Ubuntu maintained by the Ubuntu project itself, with a stated purpose of containing only 100% Free Software. It falls short of gNewSense in some corner cases, but installing it and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software per se. However, there is a risk that it ends up being confused with other Ubuntu variants that do, and that users might install non-Free Software from the shared Ubuntu repositories, without realizing it is non-Free. |
| Line 331: | Line 315: |
A GNU/Linux distribution maintained and promoted by a large international community, and sponsored by a company whose business is mainly selling Open Source Software-based services, some of which are derived from this distribution. Although creating a distribution containing only Free Software is a stated purpose of the Fedora community, the long-time policy of including redistributable non-Free firmware, exercised since Fedora 7, is at odds with this goal. Excluding these firmwares from the installation, and distributing custom-made spins that don't include these firmwares, doesn't spread non-Free Software, but users might install such non-Free Sofware from the original repositories, without realizing it is non-Free. |
|
| Line 332: | Line 329: |
| === Slackware === = FLISOL Libre (Texto traducido) = == Filosofía del Software Libre == === What is Free Software? === El Software Libre es software que respeta estas cuatro libertades escenciales: 0. la libertad de ejecutar el software para cualquier propósito, cuando usted lo quiera. Si alguien limita como o cuando usted puede ejecutar el software, o lo que usted puede hacer con el mismo, usted experimenta un daño moral o financiero. 1. la libertad para estudiar el software, y adaptarlo en una forma tal que haga lo que usted desee. Usted necesita el código fuente para hacer esto. Si usted no puede estudiar el software, usted nunca estará seguro de que no hace cosas que usted no quiere que haga, o que hace correctamente las cosas que asegura que hace, de forma tal que usted experimentará daño moral o financiero. Si usted no puede adaptar el software a sus propias necesidades cambiantes, las alternativas son que el software se torna eventualmente inútil o sus necesidades deben dejar de cambiar, de manera que usted experimentará daño moral y financiero. ---- 2. the freedom to distribute the software as you have received it to whoever you wish, and to publish it, whenever you wish. If you are prohibited from sharing the software, your community is morally and financially harmed, and thus so are you, because one of the foundations of life in society is sharing. If you cannot charge for distribution, then you can only do it at your own expense, so you and your community are morally and financially harmed. 3. the freedom to improve the software and distribute or publish your modifications, whenever you wish, such that you can contribute your improvements to your community. If you cannot do so, your community is morally and financially harmed, and thus so are you. If you are not free to keep your private changes to yourself, you suffer financially, for you must distribute them at your own expenses, and morally, because this freedom was turned into an obligation. You need source code to improve the software. If any of these freedoms is substantially limited for you, the Software is non-Free for you. For example, if law requires you to obtain permission from someone in order to enjoy certain freedoms, and the permission is denied, the Software is non-Free for you. If you enter an agreement with someone, and conditions in the agreement prevent you from enjoying certain freedoms, the Software is non-Free for you. === Unethical and Immoral behavior === Whoever chooses to deny you permissions, or to impose restrictions, such that you are denied substantial enjoyment of the freedoms, causes you moral and financial harm. But harming someone with intent to cause harm, or with awareness but disregard for the caused harm, is unethical. Therefore, disrespecting any of the four essential freedoms for software users is harmful and unethical. The fundamental and nearly-universal moral principle known as the golden rule establishes that you should treat others as you would like to be treated. An act that brings more harm than benefit to others, as perceived by themselves, is immoral if it doesn't bring a similar balance of harm and benefit to the perpetrator, as perceived by himself. A community protects itself and its members from harm through justice, a process that seeks to discourage unethical behavior and to restore moral balance, such that those who bring harm onto others are held accountable for their intentions and the consequences of their acts. Unethical behavior should be discouraged, because an aggression requires the victim to choose between accepting the harm and seeking justice. Seeking justice requires additional effort from the victim and from the community, i.e., further harm for both, which is unfair. Accepting the harm is clearly also unfair. However, if the aggression brings more benefit than harm to the perpetrator, it is also immoral, and accepting it indirectly harms the entire community, because it amounts to incentive for the perpetrator to repeat the aggression onto others. Therefore, the fairest and least harmful outcome is that in which the aggression is avoided. === Deciding whether to use non-Free Software === That who harms others by imposing restrictions that render Software they use non-Free most often do so in order to obtain benefits out of the restrictions, such as being paid more royalties, avoiding competition, inducing exclusive dependencies and even growing a user base through network effects. Since the aggressor gets benefit while the victim is harmed, the aggression is not only unethical, but also immoral. Unfortunately, seeking justice for such aggressions is impossible under laws that permit them. If you accept the harm imposed on you, you also harm your community. Therefore the alternative that is least harmful to your community is to avoid the aggression, i.e., to reject the non-Free Software through which the aggression would be perpetrated. Rejecting non-Free Software may require additional effort to live with limitations in Free alternatives, effort to create or improve the alternatives, and even refraining from doing what the software would be used for. All of these may translate into harm for you, but if you decide to reject it, you're always making a morally correct decision, because this decision doesn't harm anyone else. However, using non-Free Software may provide some benefit for you and your community. Finding out how the balance between harm and benefit to the community compares with the balance to you, if you should choose to accept non-Free Software, may provide you with additional morally correct alternatives, but this requires deep understanding of the benefit to your community and yourself that you expect to achieve through the software, and the harm to your community and yourself out of using the software, accepting its restrictions, spreading them and even paying for the privilege, which makes the aggressor more powerful. Only someone with deep understanding of the moral and ethical aspects of this decision, taking into account the Free Software philosophy, can properly evaluate the harms, and only someone who deeply understands what you may reasonably expect to achieve through the use of the software can properly evaluate the benefits. Someone in the latter group, without the former knowledge, will likely be unaware of the harm to the community, thus regarding the acceptance of non-Free Software as a win-win situation, even after taking into account the harm onto you, out of freedom deprivation. But the lack of understanding about the harm to the community is very likely to drive to an immoral decision that supports the acceptance of non-Free Software. Conversely, someone in the former group, without the latter knowledge, may worry too much about the harm to the community and the most obvious benefits to you, the user, and conclude that the only morally correct decision is to reject the non-Free Software. Without taking into account benefits to the community, this may be a sub-optimal moral decision. However, being too optimistic about benefits to the community, such as assuming the benefits to you automatically extends to the entire community, and expecting such overestimated benefits to offset the harm to the community, may lead to the incorrect conclusion that accepting the non-Free Software would be morally correct. Therefore, being conservative as to benefits to the community is strongly recommended. You, the user, are probably best qualified to evaluate benefits to yourself and to the community out of using a piece of non-Free Software, even though you are likely to overestimate the expected benefits before actually trying the software. Someone with deep knowledge of the philosophy is probably best qualified to evaluate the harm to you and the community out of using that piece of non-Free Software. Only someone with both qualifications can evaluate them all, to tell whether your intended use of the non-Free Software could qualify as an exception to the general rule. So, in order to reach an informed and moral decision, you could tell someone else who understands the philosophy better than you what the expected use of the software is, and how you expect this to benefit you and teh community, such that this person can make an informed recommendation taking all the benefits and harms into account. An alternative is for the person who understands the philosophy to teach it to you, such that you can make infomed decisions from that point on, and even pass on the philosophy to others. Someone with knowledge about software engineering, the expected use of the software and the mechanics of Free Software development may recommend even superior moral choices, such as investing in the development of Free Software so as to satisfy the expected use case, at some cost and benefit for you, and no harm and much benefit to the community. If you can afford the cost, by yourself or sharing it with others, this is always a morally superior to accepting non-Free Software. === Distributing non-Free Software === If you've ever accepted non-Free Software, you may find yourself in a moral dilemma when a friend asks you for a copy. You might be tempted to apply the same reasoning that you used to decide whether to accept the software in the first place, on behalf of the potential recipient. But this reasoning is not a perfect fit for this very different situation, because it fails to take into account your role. One important moral issue is that, when you distribute the non-Free Software to someone else, the harm out of deprivation of freedoms moves to the opposide side in your moral balance: accepting the restrictions is no longer your own sacrifice, it's a sacrifice the other gets to make. On the other hand, sharing and solidarity are important moral values to practice, and they were not applicable in your decision about accepting non-Free Software, but they are in the case of distributing it. However, sharing non-Free Software is always harmful, almost always immoral, and quite often unethical. When the non-Free Software does not permit redistribution, you have to decide between disappointing your friend, which is immoral, or disrespecting this restriction, so as to help your friend, which is unethical and illegal. But harming that who harms you, without escalating the harm nor taking personal advantage, is not immoral. So it appears that the only morally correct choice for this dilemma is illegal, and only legal choice is immoral. Therefore, you should avoid getting into it. There are two ways to avoid it: don't have friends, or don't have non-Free Software. Removing the restriction against redistribution takes out the unethical and illegal considerations from the above, which might get you to think that sharing is an obviously correct moral decision, but this would be setting aside the harm onto the recipient and many other factors that affect the community. Redistributable non-Free Software is a lesser aggression than prohibiting redistribution, but it is an aggression on you and your community nevertheless. Positive feedback to unethical restrictions on studying and adapting the software, often related with limiting functionality of hardware or avoiding competition, should still be avoided. So, you should take into account that the recipient may not have the same knowledge you do as to the ethical and moral issues involved. It is very important to take into account not only the direct harms and benefits of your distribution, but also that of the recipient's passing it on. If you don't have reasons to believe that the recipient is going to take into consideration the moral and ethical implications of further redistribution, then the harm to society that ensues is your resposibility: it goes against your moral balance. It is like starting a fire without precautions to make sure it remains under control. You must not disregard the harm that can be brought to the community as a consequence of distributing non-Free Software to someone who's not prepared to evaluate the harmful consequences of accepting it, let alone to pass on the knowledge needed to make such decisions before passing it on. Without this knowledge, the non-Free Software is likely to spread exponentially, its acceptance is likely to influence similar decisions pertaining to other programs, to the point of altering market dynamics as to users' choices of hardware for software to run on, availability of such choices and even making it difficult to spread the knowledge needed to make informed moral choices in this regard. If you make your decisions based solely on harm and benefits to the recipients and the community, under the reasoning applied to decide whether to accept non-Free Software, you fail to take into account the harm to the community that the recipients may cause as a consequence of your own choice to give them the software. Disregarding such a great harm will very often make a very harmful decision appear to be morally acceptable. If you can't determine whether the recipient is capable of making informed moral decisions as to whether or not to accept non-Free Software, and whether or not to further distribute it, you are better advised to take the conservative approach of bounding the harm that may ensue: try to pass on the knowledge needed to make both kinds of informed decisions, and try to make sure it is going to be taken into account before you pass on the software. Then, even if the software is obtained from another source, it is more likely that it will be handled in a moral way. === General recommendations === As a general rule of thumb, accepting non-Free Software is bad, but distributing it to someone who wouldn't hesitate before accepting it and passing it on is much worse. In other words, to us closer to the goal of the Free Software Movement, of enabling anyone who wishes to live in digital freedom to do so, don't accept non-Free Software, and, if you do, don't offer it to anyone who would accept it. [[BR]] == What is supposed to happen in FLISOL == * Promote the Free Software philosophy explain and distribute copies of the text above * Promote software freedom encourage participants to pursue freedom, reject non-Free Software, and pursue ethical and moral behavior, for the sake of society * Install Free Software give the good example of sharing, solidarity and moral behavior * Help participants make informed decisions if their computer won't work fully without non-Free Software, help them see the pros and cons of accepting it and, if you conclude an is justified for a participant, teach her how to install it, but encourage her to experiment complete freedom for a bit * Prefer operating systems that do not necessarily install non-Free Software if there are variants that install non-Free Software that can't be removed, and variants that install only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed without reason * Prefer operating systems that install only Free Software by default if there are variants that install non-Free Software unless you're careful, and variants that don't, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed by accident * Give preference to 100% Free operating systems if there are variants that contain non-Free Software, and variants that contain only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that, if you participant asks for a copy to install later, you don't have to be concerned about the legality and morality of copying. == What is not supposed to happen in FLISOL == * Do NOT install non-redistributable non-Free Software Don't ever install a non-Free operating system, non-Free applications, etc. FLISOL does not encourage you to break the law, even when that would be the only morally correct thing to do. It's best if you don't even have them around, to avoid moral dilemmas. * AVOID installing redistributable non-Free Software If you conclude an exception is called for, and you decide to help a participant copy non-Free drivers or firmware from another operating system, download and install it off the internet, etc, make sure the participant realizes it's non-Free Software, and understands the moral reasons why the exception is justified, such that it doesn't get generalized incorrectly. * Do NOT take the initiative of installing non-Free Software This may confuse participants as to what is Free Software and what isn't, and trivializing the acceptance of non-Free Software plays against everyone's freedom. We have to make sure that, if participants get Free Software installed in their computers, they know it, they understand it is an exception, why the exception is justified, and why they should try to avoid the need for such exceptions in their next computer. == Lista de componentes privativos que se instalan por omisión en == === Ubuntu === === Fedora === === Debian === |
Various GNU/Linux distributions maintained by a company whose business is mainly selling services on them, with endorsement and promotion by a large international community. Except for Gobuntu, all variants of this distribution include non-Free Software, most of them install it by default, and at least some of them make it difficult for some such non-Free Software to be removed without making the installation unbootable. Installing variants that don't force the installation of non-Free Software doesn't spread non-Free Software, but distributing copies of those that contain non-Free Software does. === Flash Player === Recommend gnash or swfdec. They can even play movies these days, but their use is endangered in some countries by the threat of software patents that cover the involved formats. === PDF reader === Recommend and install evince, xpdf, or any of the various other Free Software PDF readers. Most of them are included in Free Software distributions. === Java Virtual Machine === Although there are various Free Software JVMs, the best to recommend at the time of this writing is IcedTea, the 100% Free development version of the upcoming JDK 1.7. JDK 1.7 will probably be released and 100% Free before April 26, 2008. Don't recommend earlier versions, because they are non-Free Software, or at least contain essential non-Free Software components. === SoftPhones === There are several SIP-compliant applications for Free and non-Free operating systems. Ekiga, KPhone, linphone, and OpenWengo are just a few examples; there are many more. Recommend users to move away from non-Free Software softphones, especially those that use proprietary protocols and that have been convicted twice for GPL infringement, such as Skype. === Instant Messaging === There are too many chat programs for Free operating systems to mention, and several of them have ports for other operating systems too, so you may want to recommend them. But please don't recommend ports that are non-Free, such as the MS-Windows port of the otherwise Free X-Chat. === Video drivers === Most video controllers support the Video Electronics Standards Association specification (VESA) to the point that the X vesa driver works. Another option is to get the kernel to enter a frame buffer mode, and use the X fbdev driver. These work on most computers, even if not at the best possible resolution or the maximum speed supported by the hardware. This ought to be enough for most computing tasks these days. For those that absolutely require optimized 2D or 3D processing, several of the fastest video cards available today provide Free Software drivers and specifications for development thereof. === non-Free drivers and firmwares === When a user comes in with a piece of hardware that requires drivers or firmware that are not available for Free operating systems, but that are installed in the pre-existing non-Free operating system, copying the firmware for use in the Free operating system, or copying the driver and using ndiswrapper to run it, won't deprive the user of any freedom that hasn't already been given up, and it won't strengthen the position of the hardware vendor, unless the user then goes out and recommends the hardware to others. Therefore, this is a morally acceptable way to keep certain features of the computer functional, while enabling the user to take a big step towards freedom. But this should be done very carefully, to not give the users the impression that this is an arrangement that should be encouraged, retained for long or implemented on their next computers. === Free Software for children === The OLPC GNU/Linux distribution based on the Sugar user interface developed for the One Laptop Per Child X0 educational device for children. It includes non-Free redistributable firmware needed by some hardware components of the X0, but it is possible and easy to install it on other computers that don't require this firmware. A nice collection of software to install for those who have children in school age at home, along with GCompris, KDEEdu, etc. === Cygwin === A Free Software GNU/Linux-like environment for Microsoft Windows, containing most of the GNU operating system and many other Free Software packages commonly available on GNU/Linux distributions. A great option to install in a left-over MS-Windows partition, and also something to be considered in case of insurmountable hardware compatibility issues with a 100% Free Software installation. === QEMU === An Free Software emulator that runs on most major operating systems, Free and non-Free, that can be used to emulate and boot up another operating system on top of the one the user is used to. An option to be considered in case of insurmountable hardware compatibility issues with a 100% Free Software installation, that enables the user to start getting acquainted with a fully Free Software operating system, even if unable to escape an underlying non-Free operating system for the time being. === Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc === Don't forget to recommend them for MS-Windows users who are not ready to switch to a 100% Free Software operating system yet, but who would like to taste freedom and Free Open Standards. === FreeDOS === Some people might want to keep MS-DOS or MS-Windows installed just to play (very) old games. FreeDOS won't get them rid of their game addiction, but it's at least a step in the direction of freedom. === Wine === Wine is an execution environment for MS-Windows applications that runs on GNU/Linux and *BSD variants. For users who depend on a few specific MS-Windows applications, running them on wine while the rest of the operating system is converted to a 100% Free one is a step in the direction of freedom. === MacOS X === An operating system that contains a lot of originally-Free Software, some turned non-Free, some remaining Free, along with a non-Free user interface. Don't install it or recommend it at FLISOL. Recommend users to move away from it. === MS-Windows === A completely non-Free operating system that contains a little bit of originally-Free Software. Don't even think of installing it or recommending it at FLISOL. Tell users to run away from it as quickly as they can. === What else should be mentioned here? === If you have other suggestions of Free Software to install, or know about other software distributions that people might want to install at FLISOL, please let me know about them, ideally with as much information as you have as to non-Free components and policies regarding inclusion of non-Free Software. Copyright 2008 Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br> Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this entire document without royalty provided the copyright notice, the document's official URL, and this permission notice are preserved. Permission for translation to other languages is granted, as long as the original copyright notice and permissions are retained, along with a translation of the permissions. |
FLISOL Libre
Original en inglés:
An apology to software users
I'm sorry that I harmed you. I didn't mean to, but now I realize that I did, so I owe you an apology.
I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from running it in some ways. I didn't see a problem with that at first, and I even recommended that software to others. But then, one day, I upgraded my computer, and I couldn't run the software any more. I had to keep the old computer around, just to be able to access the information I'd created with that software, and to keep using the software and creating more information with it. If I installed it on the new computer, I could have to pay hefty fines, and even go to jail. I shouldn't have accepted these conditions, they have harmed me. I shouldn't have recommended the software, for it harmed others, including you. I shouldn't have shared files saved in a format that only this non-Free program could open, for it encouraged others to fall in the trap. Anyone who paid for the non-Free software, or recommended others to use it, offered more victims to that who ultimately caused us this harm, rewarding the aggression and further empowering the aggressor. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm sorry that I caused you this harm.
I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from studying it and adapting it to suit my needs. I thought I didn't care how it worked, as long as it worked. But one day, I wanted to write another program that accessed the information I had saved with the non-Free program, and I realized I didn't know how it saved the information, and I couldn't find out. Another day, my needs changed and I wanted a program to do something in a slightly different way. One day, it was about computations performed by the non-Free program I used. Another day, it was about controlling peripherals of my computer in a better way. Yet another, it was about fixing an error in the non-Free program. But then, I realized I didn't have permission to modify the non-Free program. And, even if I did, I didn't have the source code, so I couldn't modify the non-Free program even if I had the skills and the permission. I couldn't even study it, to learn how it worked and then write another program that did what I needed. I realized our aggressor wanted me to remain ignorant, dependent and helpless, and I regretted my decision to accept these conditions. But at that time, I'd already recommended the non-Free program to others, and they had also become dependent and helpless, further empowering the aggressor. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm sorry that I caused you this harm.
I also accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from copying it and distributing copies to others. When a friend asked me for a copy of the software, I found myself in a moral dilemma. If I helped my friend, I'd be breaking an agreement I'd entered, and also breaking the law. If I complied with the agreement, I'd disappoint my friend. I realized the prohibitions were selfish, greedy and anti-social; that the moral value of solidarity is more important than abiding by an unjust agreement, backed up by unjust laws designed to empower our aggressors: I realized I shouldn't ever accept software that I couldn't share with my friends. But by then, I'd already recommended the non-Free Software to others, and they might have accepted the conditions. If you ever asked someone for a copy of such software, and your friend disappointed you out of fear from the aggressor, my recommendation may have indirectly caused it. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you and your friends. I'm sorry that I caused you and them this harm.
Furthermore, I accepted and used non-Free Software under conditions that prohibited me from improving the software and distributing my improvements to others. Some programs, I couldn't improve because I was prohibited from modifying the program, or because I couldn't obtain the source code needed to make changes. In other cases, I actually received the source code, and I could address my own needs. However, when I found out some of my friends had the same needs, I realized our aggressor had prohibited me from helping them: our aggressor opposed solidarity and even a free market: it demanded a monopoly on providing improvements to others. But by the time I realized this, I'd already recommended the non-Free Software to others. It is possible that you and your friends, who are prohibited from helping each other, are using it as an indirect consequence of my recommendations. This harmed myself and everyone else, including you and your friends. I'm sorry that I caused you and them this harm.
I apologize for this harm, and I beg for your understanding, compassion and mercy. When I recommended these programs to others, I didn't know I was empowering our aggressor. Even after I learned it, sometimes I was fooled into buying products that would only work if I accepted these unacceptable prohibitions, and sometimes, when I realized the requirements, it was too late to return the product for a refund, to avoid empowering the aggressor. At other times, I just couldn't resist the temptation of the convenience the non-Free Software would provide me with, or I fooled myself thinking I'd somehow be able to make up for all the harm. Please understand that I'm a victim, not an aggressor. However, the aggression I endorsed, intentionally or not, harmed myself and everyone else, including you. I'm very sorry that I caused you so much harm.
Now, it would be just fair if you were to cause me just as much harm, doing to me the same things I did to you. I'm at your mercy. But please remember that the harm I caused you was unintentional, or at least under the illusion that I could make up for it. I'm guilty, but there was no bad faith. If you were to do the same things to me, just to get even, the willful intent behind your revenge would make your acts much worse than mine. Besides, your revenge would harm others, just like my acts did. They don't deserve to be harmed more just because I'm indebted to you.
Therefore, I beg you to not do to me what I did to you. Please forgive me, and avoid making the mistakes that I did. Please try to always choose Free Software, that respects your four essential software freedoms: (0) to run the program however you wish, (1) to study the source code and change it to do whatever you wish, (2) to copy the program and distribute and publish the copies when you wish, and (3) to improve the program and distribute and publish your improvements when you wish, and to not do any of these things if you don't wish to. Please try to always choose hardware that won't require or induce you or others to accept non-Free Software. Please don't empower our aggressors, and resist as much as you can the disrespect and abuse that they impose on us with non-Free Software. Please don't recommend non-Free Software to others, especially if they don't know how much harm they can cause with it, to themselves and to others, including you and me. Please forgive me, don't seek revenge.
Recommendations for FLISOL organizers
Promote the Free Software philosophy
Explain and distribute copies of the text above.
Promote software freedom
Encourage participants to pursue freedom, reject non-Free Software, and pursue ethical and moral behavior, for the sake of society.
Install Free Software
Give the good example of sharing, solidarity and moral behavior.
Help participants make informed decisions
If their computer won't work fully without non-Free Software, help them see the pros and cons of accepting it. If you conclude an exception is justified for a participant, teach her how to install it, but encourage her to experiment complete freedom for a bit. Also explore the possibility of installing Free Software on the pre-existing operating system.
Prefer distributions that can be installed without non-Free Software
If there are variants that install non-Free Software that can't be removed, and variants that install only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed undesirably.
Prefer distributions that install only Free Software by default
If there are variants that install non-Free Software unless you're careful, and variants that don't, prefer the latter, such that non-Free Software doesn't end up installed by accident.
Give preference to 100% Free distributions
If there are variants that contain non-Free Software, and variants that contain only Free Software, prefer the latter, such that, if the participant asks for a copy to install later, you don't have to be concerned about the legality and morality of copying.
Do NOT install non-redistributable non-Free Software
Don't ever install such a non-Free operating system, non-Free applications, etc. FLISOL does not encourage you to break the law, even when that would be the only morally correct thing to do. It's best if you don't even have them around, to avoid moral dilemmas.
AVOID installing redistributable non-Free Software
If you conclude an exception is called for, and you decide to help a participant copy non-Free drivers or firmware from another operating system, download and install it off the internet, etc, make sure the participant realizes it's non-Free Software, and understands the moral reasons why the exception is justified, such that it doesn't get generalized incorrectly.
Do NOT take the initiative of installing non-Free Software
This may confuse participants as to what is Free Software and what isn't, and trivializing the acceptance of non-Free Software plays against everyone's freedom. We have to make sure that, if participants get Free Software installed in their computers, they know it, they understand it is an exception, why the exception is justified, and why they should try to avoid the need for such exceptions in their next computer.
Examples of interactions between user and organizer
Some are in line with the philosophy and the spirit of FLISOL, some aren't. Guess which.
The solicitous organizer
U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me?
O: Sure!
The conscious user
U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me?
O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society?
U: Yeah, I'm going to make up to society with the work I intend to do using this program, and I don't intend to pass it on to anyone who doesn't understand these issues.
O: Ok, then I will make an exception and teach you how to install it. But please get in touch with the distributor and let them know how unhappy you are about their aggression to our community.
The conscious organizer
U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me?
O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society?
U: What do you mean?
O: Please read this (or insert long conversation here) and let me know if you still think installing it is a good idea.
The confused user
U: I want this program on my computer, can you install it for me?
O: This program is not Free Software, even though it is gratis. It doesn't belong in FLISOL. Do you understand that this would harm yourself and society?
U: What do you mean?
O: Oh, nevermind, this really cool distro here will install it automatically.
Recommendations about software distributions
gNewSense
GNU/Linux general-purpose operating system based on Ubuntu, but committed to being 100% Free Software, leading the efforts of removing segments of sourceless binaries disguised as source code, and portions of non-Free Software from packages widely regarded as Free Software. Web site, translations and mailing lists in Spanish have strong participation from Latin Americans.<br/> http://www.gnewsense.org/
UTUTO XS
Independent GNU/Linux general-purpose operating systems, the first (?) with a public commitment to distribute only Free Software, available in optimized builds for several variants of x86 and x86_64. International effort started in Latin America.<br/> http://www.ututo.org/
Musix GNU+Linux
Independent GNU/Linux multimedia operating system, committed to being 100% Free Software. International effort started in Latin America, with participation from speakers of Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese and various other languages.<br/> http://musix.org.ar/en/index.html
BLAG Linux and GNU
GNU/Linux general-purpose operating system based on Fedora, but committed to being 100% Free Software.</br> http://www.blagblagblag.org/
OpenBSD
Berkeley Sofware Distribution variant that contains only Free Software. Installing and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software, but please recommend users to beware of the ports collection maintained by this project, because some of the packages that can be installed from it are non-Free Software, and they're not clearly marked.
Debian GNU/Linux
The first (?) GNU/Linux distribution project to build software freedom into its mission. Installing and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software, but please recommend users to beware of the non-free repository maintained by this project: it doesn't contain only documentation and other non-software packages that don't meet their guidelines; it also contains non-Free Software.
Gobuntu
A variant of Ubuntu maintained by the Ubuntu project itself, with a stated purpose of containing only 100% Free Software. It falls short of gNewSense in some corner cases, but installing it and sharing it doesn't spread non-Free Software per se. However, there is a risk that it ends up being confused with other Ubuntu variants that do, and that users might install non-Free Software from the shared Ubuntu repositories, without realizing it is non-Free.
Fedora
A GNU/Linux distribution maintained and promoted by a large international community, and sponsored by a company whose business is mainly selling Open Source Software-based services, some of which are derived from this distribution. Although creating a distribution containing only Free Software is a stated purpose of the Fedora community, the long-time policy of including redistributable non-Free firmware, exercised since Fedora 7, is at odds with this goal. Excluding these firmwares from the installation, and distributing custom-made spins that don't include these firmwares, doesn't spread non-Free Software, but users might install such non-Free Sofware from the original repositories, without realizing it is non-Free.
Ubuntu
Various GNU/Linux distributions maintained by a company whose business is mainly selling services on them, with endorsement and promotion by a large international community. Except for Gobuntu, all variants of this distribution include non-Free Software, most of them install it by default, and at least some of them make it difficult for some such non-Free Software to be removed without making the installation unbootable. Installing variants that don't force the installation of non-Free Software doesn't spread non-Free Software, but distributing copies of those that contain non-Free Software does.
Flash Player
Recommend gnash or swfdec. They can even play movies these days, but their use is endangered in some countries by the threat of software patents that cover the involved formats.
PDF reader
Recommend and install evince, xpdf, or any of the various other Free Software PDF readers. Most of them are included in Free Software distributions.
Java Virtual Machine
Although there are various Free Software JVMs, the best to recommend at the time of this writing is IcedTea, the 100% Free development version of the upcoming JDK 1.7. JDK 1.7 will probably be released and 100% Free before April 26, 2008. Don't recommend earlier versions, because they are non-Free Software, or at least contain essential non-Free Software components.
SoftPhones
There are several SIP-compliant applications for Free and non-Free operating systems. Ekiga, KPhone, linphone, and OpenWengo are just a few examples; there are many more. Recommend users to move away from non-Free Software softphones, especially those that use proprietary protocols and that have been convicted twice for GPL infringement, such as Skype.
Instant Messaging
There are too many chat programs for Free operating systems to mention, and several of them have ports for other operating systems too, so you may want to recommend them. But please don't recommend ports that are non-Free, such as the MS-Windows port of the otherwise Free X-Chat.
Video drivers
Most video controllers support the Video Electronics Standards Association specification (VESA) to the point that the X vesa driver works. Another option is to get the kernel to enter a frame buffer mode, and use the X fbdev driver. These work on most computers, even if not at the best possible resolution or the maximum speed supported by the hardware. This ought to be enough for most computing tasks these days. For those that absolutely require optimized 2D or 3D processing, several of the fastest video cards available today provide Free Software drivers and specifications for development thereof.
non-Free drivers and firmwares
When a user comes in with a piece of hardware that requires drivers or firmware that are not available for Free operating systems, but that are installed in the pre-existing non-Free operating system, copying the firmware for use in the Free operating system, or copying the driver and using ndiswrapper to run it, won't deprive the user of any freedom that hasn't already been given up, and it won't strengthen the position of the hardware vendor, unless the user then goes out and recommends the hardware to others. Therefore, this is a morally acceptable way to keep certain features of the computer functional, while enabling the user to take a big step towards freedom. But this should be done very carefully, to not give the users the impression that this is an arrangement that should be encouraged, retained for long or implemented on their next computers.
Free Software for children
The OLPC GNU/Linux distribution based on the Sugar user interface developed for the One Laptop Per Child X0 educational device for children. It includes non-Free redistributable firmware needed by some hardware components of the X0, but it is possible and easy to install it on other computers that don't require this firmware. A nice collection of software to install for those who have children in school age at home, along with GCompris, KDEEdu, etc.
Cygwin
A Free Software GNU/Linux-like environment for Microsoft Windows, containing most of the GNU operating system and many other Free Software packages commonly available on GNU/Linux distributions. A great option to install in a left-over MS-Windows partition, and also something to be considered in case of insurmountable hardware compatibility issues with a 100% Free Software installation.
QEMU
An Free Software emulator that runs on most major operating systems, Free and non-Free, that can be used to emulate and boot up another operating system on top of the one the user is used to. An option to be considered in case of insurmountable hardware compatibility issues with a 100% Free Software installation, that enables the user to start getting acquainted with a fully Free Software operating system, even if unable to escape an underlying non-Free operating system for the time being.
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, etc
Don't forget to recommend them for MS-Windows users who are not ready to switch to a 100% Free Software operating system yet, but who would like to taste freedom and Free Open Standards.
FreeDOS
Some people might want to keep MS-DOS or MS-Windows installed just to play (very) old games. FreeDOS won't get them rid of their game addiction, but it's at least a step in the direction of freedom.
Wine
Wine is an execution environment for MS-Windows applications that runs on GNU/Linux and *BSD variants. For users who depend on a few specific MS-Windows applications, running them on wine while the rest of the operating system is converted to a 100% Free one is a step in the direction of freedom.
MacOS X
An operating system that contains a lot of originally-Free Software, some turned non-Free, some remaining Free, along with a non-Free user interface. Don't install it or recommend it at FLISOL. Recommend users to move away from it.
MS-Windows
A completely non-Free operating system that contains a little bit of originally-Free Software. Don't even think of installing it or recommending it at FLISOL. Tell users to run away from it as quickly as they can.
What else should be mentioned here?
If you have other suggestions of Free Software to install, or know about other software distributions that people might want to install at FLISOL, please let me know about them, ideally with as much information as you have as to non-Free components and policies regarding inclusion of non-Free Software.
Copyright 2008 Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this entire document without royalty provided the copyright notice, the document's official URL, and this permission notice are preserved.
Permission for translation to other languages is granted, as long as the original copyright notice and permissions are retained, along with a translation of the permissions.