We free software advocates surely know that, no matter what we say or how we say it, some people have to or (if you prefer) simply want to use proprietary software for one reason or another - and that's even when they've heard and understood everything we have to say on the matter. Many free software advocates, though, only preach abstinence from - and a zero tolerance policy towards - proprietary software. I have to disagree with this approach. Let me explain...

While many would disagree, I think educating abstinence and taking a zero tolerance policy on just about anything - while often laudable - just doesn't work well enough and in many cases can be naive and downright negligent. Take educating children to abstain from sex and/or drugs as an example.

Despite many education programs teaching abstinence from sex and drugs, pregnancies, the spread of STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) and the use of drugs amongst children continues. This is because, no matter what you say, some people are going to do it anyway.

If you think that having a zero tolerance policy and teaching abstinence is the only solution to sex and drug use amongst children and that promoting safe sex and safe drug use actually increases the chances of kids having sex and/or taking drugs, I must ask you to explain your reasons for promoting abstinence in the first place. Is it because you simply don't want kids having sex and taking drugs? No. I'm sure it's more than that. Isn't it because you care about the kids and want them to be safe and healthy?

If this is the case, then you must realise that by having a zero tolerance policy and by only teaching abstinence, you will be neglecting the kids who go ahead and have sex and/or take drugs anyway. Surely if your goal is for every child to be safe and healthy then not only should you teach them to abstain but also how to have sex and take drugs in the safest way possible.

Perhaps you think that promoting safe sex and safe drug use is immoral or unethical. But isn't it immoral and unethical to abandon the kids that fail to abstain?

So when you come across someone who is trying to teach kids how to have safe sex and use drugs as safely as possible, maybe you should think twice about slamming them for promoting sex and drug use to children. Perhaps it's just that they accept there are always going to be some kids who will - despite the best efforts of promoters of abstinence - go ahead and have sex and/or take drugs anyway, and they're just trying to help these kids be as safe and healthy as possible.

Okay so now let's put that in terms of free and proprietary software:

Despite the efforts of free software advocates to promote abstinence from the use of proprietary software, its use continues. This is because, no matter what you say, some people are going to use it anyway.

If you think teaching abstinence from proprietary software is the only policy and that promoting the use of free software on proprietary systems or proprietary software on free systems actually increases the use of proprietary software, I must ask you to explain your reasons for promoting abstinence from proprietary software in the first place. Is it because you simply don't want people to use proprietary software? No. I'm sure it's more than that. Isn't it because you care about the people and want them to have as much software freedom as possible?

If this is the case, then you must realise that by having a zero tolerance policy and by only teaching abstinence from proprietary software, you will be neglecting the people who will go ahead and use proprietary software anyway. Surely if your goal is for everybody be as free as possible then not only should you teach them to abstain from using proprietary software but also how to use proprietary software in the freest way possible.

Perhaps you think that promoting the use of proprietary software on free systems or free software on proprietary systems is immoral or unethical. But isn't it immoral and unethical to abandon the people that fail to abstain?

So when you come across someone who is promoting the use of proprietary software on a free system or free software on a proprietary system, maybe you should think twice about slamming them for promoting proprietary software. Perhaps it's just that they accept there are always going to be some people who will - despite the best efforts of free software advocates - go ahead and use proprietary software anyway, and they're just trying to help these people be as free as possible.