first

1 files changed, 72 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md b/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc928be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Imperfection Is Not the Same as Oppression {#imperfection-is-not-the-same-as-oppression .chapter}
+=============================================
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\
+ {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+When a free program lacks capabilities that users want, that is
+unfortunate; we urge people to add what is missing. Some would go
+further and claim that a program is not even free software if it lacks
+certain functionality—that it denies freedom 0 (the freedom to run the
+program as you wish) to users or uses that it does not support. This
+argument is misguided because it is based on identifying capacity with
+freedom, and imperfection with oppression.
+
+Each program inevitably has certain functionalities and lacks others
+that might be desirable. There are some jobs it can do, and others it
+can’t do without further work. This is the nature of software.
+
+The absence of key functionality can mean certain users find the program
+totally unusable. For instance, if you only understand graphical
+interfaces, a command line program may be impossible for you to use. If
+you can’t see the screen, a program without a screen reader may be
+impossible for you to use. If you speak only Greek, a program with menus
+and messages in English may be impossible for you to use. If your
+programs are written in Ada, a C compiler is impossible for you to use.
+To overcome these barriers yourself is unreasonable to demand of you.
+Free software really ought to provide the functionality you need.
+
+Free software really ought to provide it, but the lack of that feature
+does not make the program nonfree, because it is an imperfection, not
+oppression.
+
+Making a program nonfree is an injustice committed by the developer that
+denies freedom to whoever uses it. The developer deserves condemnation
+for this. It is crucial to condemn that developer, because nobody else
+can undo the injustice as long as the developer continues to do it. We
+can, and do, try to rescue the victims by developing a free replacement,
+but we can’t make the nonfree program free.
+
+Developing a free program without adding a certain important feature is
+not doing wrong to anyone. Rather, it’s doing some good but not all the
+good that people need. Nobody in particular deserves condemnation for
+not developing the missing feature, since any capable person could do
+it. It would be ungrateful, as well as self-defeating, to single out the
+free program’s authors for blame for not having done some additional
+work.
+
+What we can do is state that completing the job calls for doing some
+additional work. That is constructive because it helps us convince
+someone to do that work.
+
+If you think a certain extension in a free program is important, please
+push for it in the way that respects our contributors. Don’t criticize
+the people who contributed the useful code we have. Rather, look for a
+way to complete the job. You can urge the program’s developers to turn
+their attention to the missing feature when they have time for more
+work. You can offer to help them. You can recruit people or raise funds
+to support the work.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\