Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/09/have-to-use.html

I often hear it. I have to use proprietary software, people
say. But usually, that’s a justification and an excuse. Saying have
to implies that they’ve been compelled by some external force to do
it.

It begs the question: Who’s doing the forcing? I don’t deny
there might be occasions with a certain amount of force. Imagine if
you’re unemployed, and you’ve spent months looking for a job. You
finally get one, but it generally doesn’t have anything to do with
software. After working a few weeks, your boss says you have to use a
Microsoft Windows computer. Your choices are: use the software or be
fired and spend months again looking for a job. In that case, if you
told me you have to use proprietary software, I’d easily
agree.

But, imagine people who just have something they want to do, completely
unrelated to their job, that is made convenient with proprietary
software. In that case, there is no have to. One doesn’t have
to do a side project. So, it’s a choice. The right phrase
is wanted to, not have to.

Saying that you’re forced to do something when you really aren’t is a
failure to take responsibility for your actions. I generally don’t
think users of proprietary software are primarily to blame for the
challenges of software freedom — nearly all the blame lies with
those who write, market, and distribute proprietary software. However,
I think that software users should be clear about why they are using the
software. It’s quite rare for someone to be compelled under threat of
economic (or other) harm to use proprietary software. Therefore, only
rarely is it justifiable to say you have to use proprietary
software. In most cases, saying so is just making an excuse.

As for being forced to develop proprietary software, I think it’s
even rarer yet. Back in 1991 when I first
read the GNU
Manifesto, I was moved by RMS’ words about the issue:

“Won’t programmers starve?”

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing
on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner’s
implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers
cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.

Well, even if it is all or nothing, RMS was actually right
about this: we can do something else. By the mid 1990s, these words had
inspired me to make a lifelong plan to make sure I’d never have to write
or support proprietary software again. Despite being trained primarily
as a computer scientist, I’ve spent much time building contingency plans
to make sure I wouldn’t be left with proprietary software support or
development as my only marketable skill.

During the 1990s, it wasn’t clear that software freedom would have any
success at all. It was a fringe activity; Cygnus was roughly
the only for-profit company able to employ people to
write Free Software. As such, I of course started learning the GCC
codebase, figuring that I’d maybe someday get a job at Cygnus. I also
started training as an American Sign Language translator, so I’d have a
fallback career if I didn’t get a job at Cygnus. Later, I learned how
to play poker really well, figuring that in a worst case, I could end up
as a professional poker player permanently.

As it turned out, I’ve never had to rely fully on these fallback plans,
primarily because I was hired by the FSF in 1999. For the last eleven
years, I have been able to ensure that I’ve never had a job that
required that I use, support, or write proprietary software and I’ve
worked only on activities that directly advanced software freedom. I
admit I was often afraid that someday I might be unable to find a job,
and I’d have to support, use or write proprietary software
again. Yet, despite that fear, since 1997, I’ve never even been close
to that.

So, honestly, I just don’t believe those who say they have to
use proprietary software. Almost always, they chose to use
it, because it’s more convenient than the other things they’d have to
do to avoid it. Or, perhaps, they’d rather write or use proprietary
software than write or use no software at all, even when avoiding
software entirely was a viable option.

In summary, I want to be clear that I don’t judge people who use
proprietary software. I realize not everyone wants to live their life
as I do — with cascading fallback plans to avoid using, writing or
supporting proprietary software. I nevertheless think it’s disingenuous
to say you have to use, support or develop proprietary
software. It’s a choice, and every year that goes by, the choice gets
easier, so the statement sounds more like an excuse all the time.