Over the past decade, the free software community has grappled with a growing challenge: the temptation to use nonfree development tools that promise efficiency and power. While these tools may initially seem advantageous, their use comes at a significant cost—one that undermines the core principles of software freedom.
 |
| Why Free Software Deserves Free Tools A Call to Action for Developers |
The Allure and Risks of Nonfree Tools
Nonfree tools, such as BitKeeper, SourceForge, Google Code, and GitHub, often offer functionality that outpaces their free software counterparts. However, these tools operate as proprietary software or as network services whose code is inaccessible to users. This lack of transparency and freedom creates an “ends-justify-the-means” dilemma for developers, trading short-term efficiency for long-term loss of freedom for both developers and users.
The use of nonfree tools compromises the credibility of the free software movement. It sends a message that while software freedom is vital for users, it is somehow dispensable for developers. Such contradictions erode trust and the ethical foundations of the movement.
BitKeeper and the Creation of Git
A striking example of this dilemma occurred in 2002 when Linus Torvalds announced that the Linux kernel project would adopt the BitKeeper distributed version control system (DVCS). At the time, BitKeeper’s functionality was unmatched by free software alternatives, leading some Linux developers to accept the trade-off. However, when Andrew Tridgell’s efforts to create a free alternative to BitKeeper led to a conflict, the tool’s owner revoked its free licenses for Linux developers. This incident forced the community to create a free replacement—the tool we now know as Git.
The BitKeeper episode highlights the precariousness of relying on nonfree tools. Developers’ freedom was contingent on the goodwill of a proprietary tool’s owner. When that goodwill evaporated, so did access to the tool.
The Broader Problem of Proprietary Platforms
BitKeeper is far from the only instance where free software developers have relied on nonfree tools. Platforms like SourceForge, Google Code, and GitHub provide services that facilitate collaboration but keep their own code proprietary. While these platforms are marketed as allies to free software, they disempower developers by denying them access to the very tools they use. This creates a dependency that undermines the freedom of the software being developed.
The Ethical and Practical Consequences
A Conflicting Message: Using nonfree tools undermines the ethical foundation of free software. It suggests to users that software freedom is less important for developers than it is for users, creating a double standard that weakens advocacy for software freedom.
Freedom as a Dependency: The freedom of software depends not only on its license but also on the tools used for its creation, modification, and distribution. When developers use proprietary tools, they risk locking users into dependencies that contradict the principles of software freedom.
A Call for Free Alternatives: Developers must support and improve free alternatives to proprietary tools. Platforms like GNU Savannah and Gitorious offer free software solutions that align with the values of the free software movement. By adopting and contributing to these alternatives, developers can ensure the sustainability of software freedom.
The Path Forward: Prioritizing Freedom
The short-term gains provided by nonfree tools come at an unacceptable cost. Developers must resist the allure of proprietary tools and instead champion the creation and use of free alternatives. This approach aligns with the early vision of the GNU Project, which prioritized building free tools for creating free software.
Free software’s success lies in its commitment to principles. Compromising on the freedom of tools is self-defeating and unsustainable. To build a truly free digital ecosystem, developers must ensure that their tools reflect the same freedoms they strive to provide to their users. By doing so, they honor the spirit of the free software movement and pave the way for a future where software freedom is unassailable.
0 Comments