FLISOL Libre (Texto original)
Free Software philosophy
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.
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.
Now, 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. Accepting the harm to oneself also harms the community, therefore alternative that is least harmful to the community is to avoid the aggression, i.e., to reject the software through which the aggression would be perpetrated.
Rejecting the software may require additional effort to live with limitations in alternatives, or to create or improve alternatives, or even refraining from doing what the software would be used for. All of these may translate into harm for oneself and for the community.
Likewise, using the software right away may provide some benefit for oneself and for the community. Finding out how the balance between harm and benefit to the community compares with the balance to that who chooses to accept non-Free Software requires deep understanding of harm to community and to oneself out of using the software, accepting its restrictions and even paying for the privilege, and of the benefit to community and to oneself that is expected to be achieved through the software.
Only someone who deeply understands morals, ethics and the Free Software philosophy can properly evaluate the harms, and only someone who deeply understands what the user intends 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 choice to accept the non-Free Software as a win-win situation, even after taking the harm to oneself into account. But the lack of information about the mark to the community is very likely to drive to a immoral decision.
Someone in the former group, without the latter knowledge, may overemphasize the benefit to the user without as much as estimating the benefit to the community it needs to be compared with, coming to a conclusion that harms the community more than needed. Or, this person may disregard the benefit to the user, coming to a conclusion that does not benefit the community as much as would be possible. Either decision may turn out to be immoral, due to lack of enough information to make a moral decision.
The user is probably best qualified to evaluate benefits to herself and to the community out of using a piece of non-Free Software, even though the user is 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 the user and to the community out of using that piece of non-Free Software.
Only someone with both qualifications can evaluate them all, to tell whether using the non-Free Software is moral or immoral.
So, in order to make any individual decision, the user could tell someone else who understands the philosophy what the expected use of the software is, 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 the user, such that the user can make infomed decisions at that time, and at any later time, and pass the philosophy on while at that.
Someone with knowledge about software engineering, the expected use of the software and the mechanics of Free Software development may recommend improved moral choices, such as investing in the development of Free Software so as to satisfy the expected use case.
If you ever accept distributable non-Free Software, you may find yourself in a situation in which you have to decide whether or not to distribute the software to someone else. 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.
One important difference is that the distributor does not suffer any direct harm out of the distribution, unlike the recipient who does suffer harm out of accepting the restriction. It only suffers harm as a member of the community, out of the positive feedback to the unethical imposition of restrictions.
Also, 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 to the recipient and to the community of ouf the recipient's acceptance of the software, but also that of the recipient's passing on of the non-Free Software to others, possibly along with advice that does not take all of the relevant ethical and moral issues into account.
The distributor 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.
Distributors who make their decisions based solely on harm and benefits to the user and community, the reasoning applied to decide whether to accept non-Free Software, fail to take into account the harm to the community that the recipient may cause as a consequence of their 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.
Distributors who can't determine whether the recipient is capable of making informed moral decisions as to whether or not to accept non-Free Software, and to further distribute it, are better advised to take the conservative approach of bounding the harm that may come out of their own actions, thus not distributing the software before they successfully pass on the knowledge needed to make both kinds of informed decisions, such that, even if the user obtains the software from someone else, she will still be more likely to make correct moral decisions as to accepting it and distributing it.
As a general rule of thumb, accepting non-Free Software is bad, but distributing it to someone who wouldn't hesitate in accepting it and passing it on is worse, by far. If you'd like to help advance the Free Software movement, please don't do this.
Filosofía del Software Libre
El Software Libre es el Software que respeta 4 libertades básicas:
¿Cosas que no deben suceder?
- Instalar software Privativo
- Omitir hablarles a los asistentes sobre la importancia de la libertad
¿Cosas que pueden pasar?
Lista de componentes privativos que se instalan por omisión en
Ubuntu
Fedora
Debian
FLISOL Libre (Texto traducido)
Filosofía del Software Libre
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.
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.
Now, 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. Accepting the harm to oneself also harms the community, therefore alternative that is least harmful to the community is to avoid the aggression, i.e., to reject the software through which the aggression would be perpetrated.
Rejecting the software may require additional effort to live with limitations in alternatives, or to create or improve alternatives, or even refraining from doing what the software would be used for. All of these may translate into harm for oneself and for the community.
Likewise, using the software right away may provide some benefit for oneself and for the community. Finding out how the balance between harm and benefit to the community compares with the balance to that who chooses to accept non-Free Software requires deep understanding of harm to community and to oneself out of using the software, accepting its restrictions and even paying for the privilege, and of the benefit to community and to oneself that is expected to be achieved through the software.
Only someone who deeply understands morals, ethics and the Free Software philosophy can properly evaluate the harms, and only someone who deeply understands what the user intends 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 choice to accept the non-Free Software as a win-win situation, even after taking the harm to oneself into account. But the lack of information about the mark to the community is very likely to drive to a immoral decision.
Someone in the former group, without the latter knowledge, may overemphasize the benefit to the user without as much as estimating the benefit to the community it needs to be compared with, coming to a conclusion that harms the community more than needed. Or, this person may disregard the benefit to the user, coming to a conclusion that does not benefit the community as much as would be possible. Either decision may turn out to be immoral, due to lack of enough information to make a moral decision.
The user is probably best qualified to evaluate benefits to herself and to the community out of using a piece of non-Free Software, even though the user is 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 the user and to the community out of using that piece of non-Free Software.
Only someone with both qualifications can evaluate them all, to tell whether using the non-Free Software is moral or immoral.
So, in order to make any individual decision, the user could tell someone else who understands the philosophy what the expected use of the software is, 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 the user, such that the user can make infomed decisions at that time, and at any later time, and pass the philosophy on while at that.
Someone with knowledge about software engineering, the expected use of the software and the mechanics of Free Software development may recommend improved moral choices, such as investing in the development of Free Software so as to satisfy the expected use case.
If you ever accept distributable non-Free Software, you may find yourself in a situation in which you have to decide whether or not to distribute the software to someone else. 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.
One important difference is that the distributor does not suffer any direct harm out of the distribution, unlike the recipient who does suffer harm out of accepting the restriction. It only suffers harm as a member of the community, out of the positive feedback to the unethical imposition of restrictions.
Also, 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 to the recipient and to the community of ouf the recipient's acceptance of the software, but also that of the recipient's passing on of the non-Free Software to others, possibly along with advice that does not take all of the relevant ethical and moral issues into account.
The distributor 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.
Distributors who make their decisions based solely on harm and benefits to the user and community, the reasoning applied to decide whether to accept non-Free Software, fail to take into account the harm to the community that the recipient may cause as a consequence of their 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.
Distributors who can't determine whether the recipient is capable of making informed moral decisions as to whether or not to accept non-Free Software, and to further distribute it, are better advised to take the conservative approach of bounding the harm that may come out of their own actions, thus not distributing the software before they successfully pass on the knowledge needed to make both kinds of informed decisions, such that, even if the user obtains the software from someone else, she will still be more likely to make correct moral decisions as to accepting it and distributing it.
As a general rule of thumb, accepting non-Free Software is bad, but distributing it to someone who wouldn't hesitate in accepting it and passing it on is worse, by far. If you'd like to help advance the Free Software movement, please don't do this.
¿Cosas que no deben suceder?
- Instalar software Privativo
- Omitir hablarles a los asistentes sobre la importancia de la libertad
¿Cosas que pueden pasar?
Lista de componentes privativos que se instalan por omisión en
Ubuntu
Fedora