Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

It is clear that GNOME needs to do more to educate its community,
including the Foundation members, about the importance of freedom;
that is, to communicate and support the ideas of the free software
movement.
	
The draft statement posted uses the term free software, but
it does not support the ethical idea of free software.

    The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software
    but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. 

The basic ethical idea of free software is that proprietary software
denies its users the freedom they deserve.  To support the free
software idea in some degree is to be, in that degree, critical of
proprietary software, even if one doesn't emphasize that aspect.

Thus, the sentence cited above has the effect of refusing to support
the free software idea.

     Sometimes those companies are
    proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to
    free software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use
    of GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help
    them and their customers.

We want GNOME to be used, even in proprietary applications.  Thus, if
a proprietary program uses GNOME, we are glad GNOME was chosen.

However, the word "delighted" is so strongly positive that the overall
effect is to praise and welcome said proprietary software.  It implies
we are glad that a proprietary program was developed, presuming it
uses GNOME -- and we shouldn't be.


The statement could express mild support for the ethical idea of free
software by replacing the first sentence cited with this

    GNOME was developed for the sake of computer users' freedom.
    The GNOME Foundation supports users' freedom and promotes free software.

and replacing the second with

    Even if a program is proprietary, we invite its developers to use
    GNOME as its interface platform.


Introducing the term "open source" into the statement, along with the
open source position that it already endorses, would reject the free
software idea even more strongly.  This is not the way to express
support.