diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html | 1341 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1341 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html deleted file mode 100644 index b9f92e2b..00000000 --- a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1341 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> -<html><!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --><!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 -texi2html was written by: - Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) - Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> - Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de> - and many others. -Maintained by: Many creative people. -Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> ---><head><title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 2. The GNU Project</title><meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."><meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 2. The GNU Project"><meta name="resource-type" content="document"><meta name="distribution" content="global"><meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><style type="text/css"> -<!-- -a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} -blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} -pre.display {font-family: serif} -pre.format {font-family: serif} -pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif} -pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif} -pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} -pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller} -pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} -pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller} -span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} -span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} -ul.toc {list-style: none} ---> -</style><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../web-common/style.css"></head><body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000" class="article"> - -<a name="GNU-Project"></a> -<header><div id="logo"><a href="/"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></a></div><h1 class="book-title">Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="The-GNU-Project"></a> -<h1 class="chapter"> 2. The GNU Project </h1> - - -<a name="index-GNU-Project-_0028see-also-GNU_0029"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project"></a> -<a name="The-First-Software_002dSharing-Community"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The First Software-Sharing Community </h3> - -<a name="index-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab_002c-MIT-_0028see-also-MIT_0029"></a> -<p>When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, -I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for -many years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular -community; it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as -old as cooking. But we did it more than most. -</p> -<p>The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called -<a name="index-ITS-_0028Incompatible-Timesharing-System_0029"></a> -ITS (the -Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab’s staff -<a name="index-hackers"></a> -hackers<a name="DOCF2" href="#FOOT2">(2)</a> had designed -and written in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one of the -large computers of the era. As a member of this community, an AI Lab -staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system. -</p> -<p>We did not call our software “free software,” because that -term did not yet exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from -another university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we -gladly let them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and -interesting program, you could always ask to see the source code, so -that you could read it, change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make -a new program. -</p> -<a name="The-Collapse-of-the-Community"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The Collapse of the Community </h3> - -<p>The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital -discontinued the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, -elegant and powerful in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the -larger address spaces that were becoming feasible in the 80s. This -meant that nearly all of the programs composing ITS were -obsolete. -</p> - -<p>The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. -In 1981, the spin-off company -<a name="index-Symbolics"></a> -Symbolics had hired away nearly all of -the hackers from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable -to maintain itself. -<a name="index-Levy_002c-Steven"></a> -(The book <cite>Hackers,</cite> by Steve Levy, describes -these events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in -its prime.) When the AI Lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators -decided to use Digital’s nonfree timesharing system instead of -<a name="index-ITS-_0028Incompatible-Timesharing-System_0029-1"></a> -ITS. -</p> -<p>The modern computers of the era, such as the -<a name="index-VAX"></a> -VAX or the -<a name="index-68000_002dclass-hardware"></a> -68020, had their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you -had to sign a -<a name="index-nondisclosure-agreements"></a> -nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy. -</p> -<p>This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not -to help your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The -rule made by the -<a name="index-ownership_002c-and-damage-to-social-cohesion"></a> -<a name="index-ownership_002c-and-users_0027-freedom"></a> -owners of proprietary software was, “If you -share with your neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, -beg us to make them.” -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-proprietary-software-and"></a> -<p>The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system that -says you are not allowed to share or change software—is antisocial, -that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise -to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on -dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the -idea surprising may have taken the proprietary software social system as -a given, or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software -businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince -people that there is only one way to look at the issue. -</p> -<a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-1"></a> -<p>When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their -“rights” or “stopping piracy,” what they -actually <em>say</em> is secondary. The real message of these statements is -in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the public is -asked to accept without examination. Let’s therefore examine them. -</p> -<p>One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural -right to own software and thus have power over all its users. (If -this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to the -public, we could not object.) Interestingly, the -<a name="index-Constitution_002c-US"></a> -US Constitution and -legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right, -but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users’ -natural right to copy. -</p> -<p>Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about -software is what jobs it allows you to do—that we computer users -should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have. -</p> -<p>A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would -never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not -offer a company power over the users of the program. This assumption -may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement -demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without -putting chains on it. -</p> -<p>If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues -based on ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first, -we arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be -free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share -software, because helping other people is the basis of society. -</p> -<p>There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning -behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the article “Why -Software Should Not Have Owners” (p. @refx{Why Free-pg}{). -</p> -<a name="A-Stark-Moral-Choice"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> A Stark Moral Choice </h3> - -<p>With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. -Instead, I faced a stark moral choice. -</p> -<p>The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing -<a name="index-nondisclosure-agreements-1"></a> -nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow -<a name="index-hackers-1"></a> -hacker. -Most likely I would also be developing software that was released -under nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other -people to betray their fellows too. -</p> -<p>I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing -code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on -years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life -making the world a worse place. -</p> -<a name="index-MIT_002c-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab"></a> -<p>I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a -nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and -the MIT AI Lab the source code for the control program -for our printer. (The lack of certain features in this program made -use of the printer extremely frustrating.) So I could not tell myself -that nondisclosure agreements were innocent. I was very angry when he -refused to share with us; I could not turn around and do the same -thing to everyone else. -</p> -<p>Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the -computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they -would still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and -restricting computer users, but it would happen nonetheless. -</p> -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-contribute-to-GNU"></a> -<p>So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the -good. I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could -write, so as to make a community possible once again? -</p> -<a name="index-GNU-_0028see-also-both-software-and-GNU_0029"></a> -<p>The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system. -That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an -operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run -the computer at all. With a free operating system, we could again -have a community of cooperating -<a name="index-hackers-2"></a> -hackers—and invite anyone to join. -And anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by -conspiring to deprive his or her friends. -</p> -<a name="index-developers_002c-_0028see-also-programmers_0029"></a> -<p>As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job. -So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I -was elected to do the job. -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-reason-for"></a> -I chose to make the system compatible with -Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily -switch to it. The name GNU was chosen, following a -<a name="index-hackers-3"></a> -hacker tradition, as -a recursive acronym for -<a name="index-GNU_002c-acronym"></a> -“GNU’s Not Unix.” -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-operating-system-parts"></a> -<p>An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run -other programs. In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the -name included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters, -debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more. -<a name="index-ITS-_0028Incompatible-Timesharing-System_0029-2"></a> -ITS had them, -<a name="index-Multics"></a> -Multics had them, -<a name="index-VMS"></a> -VMS had them, and Unix had them. The GNU -operating system would include them too. -</p> -<p>Later I heard these words, attributed to -<a name="index-Hillel-_0028the-Elder_0029"></a> -Hillel:<a name="DOCF3" href="#FOOT3">(3)</a> -</p> -<blockquote class="smallquotation"><p> If I am not for myself, who will be for me?<br> - If I am only for myself, what am I?<br> - If not now, when?<br></p></blockquote> - -<p>The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit. -</p> -<a name="Free-as-in-Freedom"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Free as in Freedom </h3> - -<p>The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it -has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, -is the definition of free software. -</p> -<p>A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if: -</p><ul><li> -You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose. - -</li><li> -You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To -make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the -source code, since making changes in a program without having the -source code is exceedingly difficult.) - -</li><li> -You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a -fee. - -</li><li> -<a name="index-copyleft_002c-modified-versions"></a> -You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program, -so that the community can benefit from your improvements. - -</li></ul><a name="index-development_002c-fundraising"></a> -<a name="index-selling_002c-free-software"></a> -<p>Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no -contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the -freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold -on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an -important way to raise funds for free software development. -Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these -collections is not free software. -</p> -<a name="index-_0060_0060free-software_002c_0027_0027-unambiguous-translations-of"></a> -<p>Because of the ambiguity of “free,” people have long -looked for alternatives, but no one has found a better term. -The English language has more words and nuances than any other, but it -lacks a simple, unambiguous, word that means “free,” as in -freedom—“unfettered” being the word that comes closest in -meaning. Such alternatives as “liberated,” -“freedom,” and “open” have either the wrong -meaning or some other disadvantage. -</p> -<a name="GNU-Software-and-the-GNU-System"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> GNU Software and the GNU System </h3> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-software_002c-as-distinguished-from-the-GNU-system"></a> -<p>Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into -reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software -wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very -beginning to use -<a name="index-TeX"></a> -TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years -later, I decided to use the -<a name="index-X-Window-System"></a> -X Window System rather than writing -another window system for GNU. -</p> -<p>Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the -collection of all -GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that are not GNU -software, programs that were developed by other people and projects -for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are free -software. -</p> -<a name="Commencing-the-Project"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Commencing the Project </h3> - -<a name="index-MIT_002c-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab-1"></a> -<a name="index-universities_002c-releasing-free-software-at"></a> -<p>In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU -software. Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to -interfere with distributing GNU as free software. If I had remained on -the staff, MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have -imposed their own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a -proprietary software package. I had no intention of doing a large -amount of work only to see it become useless for its intended purpose: -creating a new software-sharing community. -</p> -<p>However, Professor -<a name="index-Winston_002c-Patrick"></a> -Winston, then the head of the MIT AI -Lab, kindly invited me to keep using the lab’s facilities. -</p> -<a name="The-First-Steps"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The First Steps </h3> - -<a name="index-Free-University-Compiler-Kit-_0028VUCK_0029"></a> -<p>Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free -University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for -“free” is written with a <em>v.</em>) This was a compiler designed -to handle multiple languages, including -C and -<a name="index-Pascal"></a> -Pascal, and to support -multiple target machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could -use it. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-operating-system-parts-1"></a> -<p>He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the -compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the -GNU Project would be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler. -</p> -<a name="index-Pastel_002c-compiler"></a> -<p>Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I -obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a -multiplatform compiler developed at -<a name="index-Lawrence-Livermore-Lab"></a> -Lawrence Livermore Lab. It -supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed -to be a system-programming language. I added a -<a name="index-C"></a> -C front end, and began -porting it to the -<a name="index-Motorola"></a> -<a name="index-68000_002dclass-hardware-1"></a> -Motorola 68000 computer. But I had to give that -up when I discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack -space, while the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k. -</p> -<p>I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the -entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree -into a chain of “instructions,” and then generating the -whole output file, without ever freeing any storage. At this point, I -concluded I would have to write a new compiler from scratch. That new -compiler is now known as -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC"></a> -GCC; none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, -but I managed to adapt and use the C front end that I had written. -But that was some years later; first, I worked on -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Emacs"></a> -<a name="index-Emacs_002c-GNU"></a> -GNU Emacs. -</p> -<a name="GNU-Emacs"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> GNU Emacs </h3> - -<p>I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was -beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems -to do editing; having no interest in learning to use -<a name="index-vi"></a> -vi or -<a name="index-ed"></a> -ed, I had done my editing on other kinds of machines until then. -</p> -<p>At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the -question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the -anonymous ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer, -<a name="index-prep_002eai_002emit_002eedu"></a> -<code>prep.ai.mit.edu</code>, thus became the principal -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-ftp-distribution-site"></a> -GNU ftp distribution site; -when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name -to our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested -people were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So -the question was, what would I say to them? -</p> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for"></a> - -<p>I could have said, “Find a friend who is on the net and who will make -a copy for you.” Or I could have done what I did with the original -PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, “Mail me a tape and a SASE (self-addressed -stamped envelope), and I will mail it back with Emacs on it.” But I -had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free -software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted -one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software -distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today -distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems. -</p> -<a name="Is-a-Program-Free-for-Every-User_003f"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Is a Program Free for Every User? </h3> - -<a name="index-copyleft_002c-modified-versions-1"></a> -<p>If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author, -this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone -who has a copy of it. For example, -<a name="index-public-domain-software-_0028see-also-software_0029"></a> -public domain software (software -that is not copyrighted) is free software; but anyone can make a -proprietary modified version of it. Likewise, many free programs are -copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive licenses which -allow proprietary modified versions. -</p> -<a name="index-X-Window-System-1"></a> -<a name="index-MIT_002c-X-Window-System-and"></a> -<p>The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System. -Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a -permissive license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies. -They added X to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, -and covered by the same -<a name="index-nondisclosure-agreements-2"></a> -nondisclosure agreement. These copies of X -were no more free software than Unix was. -</p> -<a name="index-developers_002c-proprietary-software"></a> -<a name="index-proprietary-software_002c-paradox-of-permissive-license"></a> -<p>The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a -problem—they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was -not freedom, just “success,” defined as “having many -users.” They did not care whether these users had freedom, only -about having many of them. -</p> -<p>This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of -counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question, -“Is this program free?” If you judged based on the freedom -provided by the distribution terms of the MIT release, -you would say that X was free software. But if you measured the -freedom of the average user of X, you would have to say it was -proprietary software. Most X users were running the proprietary -versions that came with Unix systems, not the free version. -</p> -<a name="Copyleft-and-the-GNU-GPL"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Copyleft and the GNU GPL </h3> - -<a name="index-GPL_002c-copyleft-and"></a> -<a name="index-copyleft_002c-GPL-and"></a> -<p>The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So -we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software -from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is -called “copyleft.”<a name="DOCF4" href="#FOOT4">(4)</a> -</p> -<p>Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite -of its usual purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it -becomes a means for keeping the program free. -</p> -<p>The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to -run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute -modified versions—but not permission to add restrictions of their -own. Thus, the crucial freedoms that define “free -software” are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become -inalienable rights. -</p> -<p>For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This -ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if -it is published. When programmers who have jobs as programmers -volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their -employers from saying, “You can’t share those changes, because -we are going to use them to make our proprietary version of the -program.” -<a name="index-copyleft_002c-modified-versions-2"></a> -</p> -<p>The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to -ensure freedom for every user of the program. The companies that -privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to -their systems and hardware. These changes were small compared with -the great extent of X, but they were not trivial. If making changes -were an excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone -to take advantage of the excuse. -<a name="index-X-Window-System-2"></a> -</p> -<p>A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code. -Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms -are lacking for the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as -well. To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to -sink a ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug -this hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program -must be such that the larger combined version is also free and -copylefted. -</p> -<p>The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU -software is the -<a name="index-GPL"></a> -GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. We -have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances. -GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of -copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary -for manuals.<a name="DOCF5" href="#FOOT5">(5)</a>) for documentation. - -<a name="index-copyleft_002c-GPL-and-1"></a> -<a name="index-GPL_002c-copyleft-and-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="The-Free-Software-Foundation"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The Free Software Foundation </h3> - -<a name="index-Free-Software-Foundation-_0028FSF_0029-_0028see-also-FSF_0029"></a> -<a name="index-development_002c-funding-for"></a> -<p>As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved -in the GNU Project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding -once again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a -tax-exempt charity for free software development. The -FSF also took over the -Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding -other free software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling -free manuals as well. -</p> -<p>Most of the FSF’s income used to come from sales of copies of free -software and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code, -CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to -redistribute and modify), and -<a name="index-Deluxe-Distributions_002c-FSF"></a> -<a name="index-FSF_002c-Deluxe-Distributions"></a> -<a name="index-FSF_002c-fundraising"></a> -Deluxe Distributions (distributions for -which we built the whole collection of software for the customer’s -choice of platform). Today the FSF -still sells manuals and other -gear, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members’ dues. You -can join the FSF at <a href="http://fsf.org/join">http://fsf.org/join</a>. -</p> -<p>Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a -number of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the -<a name="index-C-library"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C"></a> -C library -and the shell. The -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-Library"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-GNU-C-Library-_0028see-also-GNU_0029"></a> -GNU C library is what every program running on a -GNU/Linux system uses to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a -member of the Free Software Foundation staff, -<a name="index-McGrath_002c-Roland"></a> -Roland McGrath. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029"></a> -<a name="index-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029_002c-GNU"></a> -The -shell used on most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again -Shell,<a name="DOCF6" href="#FOOT6">(6)</a> which was developed by -FSF employee -<a name="index-Fox_002c-Brian"></a> -Brian Fox. -</p> -<p>We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was -not just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a -complete operating system, and these programs were needed for that -goal. -</p> -<a name="Free-Software-Support"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Free Software Support </h3> - -<p>The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business -practice, but it is not against business. When businesses respect the -users’ freedom, we wish them success. -</p> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-1"></a> -<a name="index-selling_002c-free-software-1"></a> -<p>Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software -business. When the FSF took over that business, I needed -another way to make a living. I found it in selling services relating -to the free software I had developed. This included teaching, for -subjects such as how to program GNU Emacs and how to -customize -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-1"></a> -GCC, and software development, mostly -porting GCC to new platforms. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Emacs-1"></a> -<a name="index-Emacs_002c-GNU-1"></a> -</p> -<p>Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a -number of corporations. Some distribute free software collections on -CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user -questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features. We are even -beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free -software products. -</p> -<a name="index-_0060_0060open_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term"></a> -<a name="index-traps_002c-_0060_0060open-source_0027_0027"></a> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e"></a> -<p>Watch out, though—a number of companies that associate themselves -with the term “open source” actually base their business -on nonfree software that works with free software. These are not -free software companies, they are proprietary software companies whose -products tempt users away from freedom. They call these programs -“value-added packages,” which shows the values they -would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If we value freedom -more, we should -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029-1"></a> -call them “freedom-subtracted” packages. -<a name="index-Free-Software-Foundation-_0028FSF_0029-_0028see-also-FSF_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-development_002c-funding-for-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Technical-Goals"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Technical Goals </h3> - -<p>The principal goal of GNU is to be free software. Even if GNU had no -technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage, -allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the -user’s freedom. -</p> -<p>But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to -the work—for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid -arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes -wherever that made sense. -</p> -<p>In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by -deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit -machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished), -and to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a -megabyte. In programs for which handling very large files was not -crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into -core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O. -</p> -<p>These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix -counterparts in reliability and speed. -</p> -<a name="Donated-Computers"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Donated Computers </h3> - -<a name="index-development_002c-contributions-and-donations"></a> -<p>As the GNU Project’s reputation grew, people began offering to donate -machines running Unix to the project. These were very useful, because -the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a Unix -system, and replace the components of that system one by one. But -they raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a -copy of Unix at all. -</p> -<p>Unix was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU Project’s -philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software. But, -applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence -in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to -use a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free -replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package. -</p> -<p>But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil. Today -we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them -with free operating systems. If we could not replace a machine’s -operating system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead. -</p> -<a name="The-GNU-Task-List"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The GNU Task List </h3> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Task-List"></a> -<p>As the GNU Project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system -components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to -make a list of the remaining gaps. We used it to recruit -<a name="index-developers_002c-GNU-Project"></a> -developers -to write the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU Task -List. In addition to missing Unix components, we listed various -other useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a -truly complete system ought to have. -</p> -<p>Today,<a name="DOCF7" href="#FOOT7">(7)</a> hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task List—those -jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But the list -is full of projects that some might call “applications.” -Any program that appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be -a useful thing to add to an operating system. -</p> -<a name="index-games_002c-Unix-compatibility-and"></a> -<p>Even games are included in the task list—and have been since the -beginning. -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-games-and"></a> -Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But -compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the -list of games that Unix had. Instead, we listed a spectrum of -different kinds of games that users might like. -</p> -<a name="The-GNU-Library-GPL"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The GNU Library GPL </h3> - -<a name="index-LGPL_002c-GNU-C-library-and"></a> -<a name="index-developers_002c-collaboration-between"></a> -<p>The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU -Library General Public License,<a name="DOCF8" href="#FOOT8">(8)</a> which gives permission to link -proprietary software with the library. Why make this exception? -</p> -<p>It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says -proprietary software products are entitled to include our code. (Why -contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?) -Using the LGPL for the -<a name="index-C-library-1"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C-1"></a> -C library, or for any library, is a matter of -strategy. -</p> -<a name="index-C-library-2"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C-2"></a> -<p>The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler -comes with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available -only to free software would not have given free software any -advantage—it would only have discouraged use of our library. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-Library-1"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-GNU-C-Library-_0028see-also-GNU_0029-1"></a> -<p>One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this -includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only -<a name="index-C-library-3"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C-3"></a> -C library. So the -distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is -possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system. -There is no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU -system, but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more -to discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of -free applications. That is why using the Library GPL is a good -strategy for the C library. -</p> -<p>For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be -considered on a case-by-case basis. When a library does a special job -that can help write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under -the GPL, limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other -free software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary -software. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Readline"></a> -<a name="index-Readline_002c-GNU-_0028see-also-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-GNU_0029"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-GNU"></a> -<a name="index-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029_002c-GNU-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029-1"></a> -<p>Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide -command-line editing for BASH. Readline is -released under the ordinary -<a name="index-GPL-1"></a> -GNU GPL, not the Library GPL. This -probably does reduce the amount Readline is used, but that is no loss -for us. Meanwhile, at least one useful application has been made free -software specifically so it could use Readline, and that is a real -gain for the community. -</p> -<p>Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides; -free software developers need to make advantages for each other. I -hope some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries -that have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing -useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and -adding up to a major advantage for further free software development. -<a name="index-developers_002c-collaboration-between-1"></a> -<a name="index-LGPL_002c-GNU-C-library-and-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Scratching-an-Itch_003f"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Scratching an Itch? </h3> - -<a name="index-developers_002c-incentive-for"></a> -<a name="index-Raymond_002c-Eric"></a> -<p>Eric Raymond<a name="DOCF9" href="#FOOT9">(9)</a>). - says that “Every good work of software -starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.”<a name="DOCF10" href="#FOOT10">(10)</a> Maybe that happens sometimes, but many -essential pieces of -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-software-_0028see-also-software_0029"></a> -GNU software were developed in order to have a -complete free operating system. They come from a vision and a plan, -not from impulse. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-Library-2"></a> -<p>For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system -needs a -<a name="index-C-library-4"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C-4"></a> -C library, BASH -because a Unix-like system needs a shell, and -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-tar"></a> -GNU tar because a -Unix-like system needs a tar program. The same is true for my own -programs—the -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-compiler-_0028see-also-GNU_002c-GCC_0029"></a> -GNU C compiler, -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Emacs-2"></a> -<a name="index-Emacs_002c-GNU-2"></a> -GNU Emacs, -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GDB"></a> -GDB and -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Make"></a> -GNU Make. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-Library-3"></a> -</p> -<a name="index-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029_002c-GNU-2"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029-2"></a> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-programs-developed-to-cope-with-specific-threats"></a> -<p>Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our -freedom. Thus, we developed -<a name="index-gzip"></a> -gzip to replace the -<a name="index-Compress-program"></a> -Compress program, -which had been lost to the community because of -the -<a name="index-LZW-_0028Lempel_002dZiv_002dWelch_0029-data-compression-algorithm-_0028see-also-patents_0029"></a> -LZW patents. We found -people to develop -<a name="index-LessTif-_0028see-also-Motif_0029"></a> -LessTif, and more recently started -<a name="index-GNOME-_0028GNU-Network-Object-Model-Environment_0029"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNOME-_0028GNU-Network-Object-Model-Environment_0029"></a> -GNOME and -<a name="index-GNU_002c-Harmony"></a> -<a name="index-Harmony"></a> -Harmony, to address the problems caused by certain proprietary -libraries (see below). We are developing the -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Privacy-Guard-_0028GPG_0029"></a> -<a name="index-GPG-_0028GNU-Privacy-Guard_0029"></a> -<a name="index-Privacy-Guard-_0028GPG_0029_002c-GNU"></a> -GNU Privacy Guard to -replace popular nonfree encryption software, because users should not -have to choose between privacy and freedom. -</p> -<p>Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the -work, and many features were added to them by various people for the -sake of their own needs and interests. But that is not why the -programs exist. -</p> -<a name="Unexpected-Developments"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Unexpected Developments </h3> - -<p>At the beginning of the GNU Project, I imagined that we would develop -the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole. That is not how it -happened. -</p> -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-GNU-Project-development-and"></a> -<p>Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix -system, each component could run on Unix systems long before a -complete GNU system existed. Some of these programs became popular, -and users began extending them and porting them—to the various -incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as well. -</p> -<p>The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both -funds and contributors to the GNU Project. But it probably also -delayed completion of a minimal working system by several years, as -<a name="index-developers_002c-GNU-Project-1"></a> -GNU developers’ time was put into maintaining these ports and adding -features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write -one missing component after another. -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-GNU-Project-development-and-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="The-GNU-Hurd"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The GNU Hurd </h3> - -<a name="index-Hurd_002c-GNU"></a> -<a name="index-kernel_002c-GNU-Hurd"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Hurd"></a> -<a name="index-Mach-microkernel"></a> -<p>By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing -component was the kernel. We had decided to implement our kernel as a -collection of server processes running on top of Mach. Mach is a -microkernel developed at -<a name="index-Carnegie-Mellon-University"></a> -Carnegie Mellon University and then at the -<a name="index-University-of-Utah"></a> -University of Utah; the GNU Hurd is a collection of servers (i.e., a -herd of GNUs) that run on top of Mach, and do the -various jobs of the Unix kernel. The start of development was delayed -as we waited for Mach to be released as free software, as had been -promised. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-operating-system-parts-2"></a> -<p>One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the -hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a -source-level debugger to do it with. This part of the job had been -done already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the Hurd servers as -user programs, with -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GDB-1"></a> -GDB. But it took a long time to make that possible, -and the multithreaded servers that send messages to each other have -turned out to be very hard to debug. Making the Hurd work solidly has -stretched on for many years. -</p> -<a name="Alix"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Alix </h3> - -<a name="index-Hurd_002c-original-name-of"></a> -<a name="index-Alix"></a> -<p>The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd. Its -original name was Alix—named after the woman who was my sweetheart at -the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her -name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a -joke, she told her friends, “Someone should name a kernel after -me.” I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel -named Alix. -</p> -<p>It did not stay that way. -<a name="index-Bushnell_002c-Michael-_0028now-Thomas_0029"></a> -Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main -<a name="index-developers_002c-_0028see-also-programmers_0029-1"></a> -developer of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix -to refer to a certain part of the kernel—the part that would trap -system calls and handle them by sending messages to Hurd servers. -</p> -<p>Later, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; -independently, the Hurd design was changed so that the -<a name="index-C-library-5"></a> -<a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-C-5"></a> -C library would -send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component -disappear from the design. -</p> -<p>But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the -name Alix in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her. So -she did have the chance to find a kernel named after her. -</p> -<a name="Linux-and-GNU_002fLinux"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Linux and GNU/Linux </h3> - -<p>The GNU Hurd is not suitable for production use, and we don’t know -if it ever will be. The capability-based design has problems that -result directly from the flexibility of the design, and it is not -clear solutions exist. -</p> -<p>Fortunately, another kernel is available. -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-Linux-kernel-and"></a> -In 1991, -<a name="index-Torvalds_002c-Linus"></a> -Linus Torvalds developed a -<a name="index-Linux-kernel"></a> -<a name="index-kernel_002c-Linux"></a> -Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. In 1992, he made Linux -free software; combining Linux with the not-quite-complete -<a name="index-GNU-_0028see-also-both-software-and-GNU_0029-1"></a> -GNU system -resulted in a complete free operating system. (Combining them was a -substantial job in itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can -actually run a version of the GNU system today. -</p> -<p>We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a -combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Hurd-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Challenges-in-Our-Future"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Challenges in Our Future </h3> - -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-future-challenges"></a> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-future-challenges-to"></a> -<p>We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free -software. This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable. -Several challenges make the future of free software uncertain; meeting -them will require steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting -for years. It will require the kind of determination that people -display when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take it -away. -</p> -<p>The following four sections discuss these challenges. -</p> -<a name="Secret-Hardware"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Secret Hardware </h3> - -<p>Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware -specifications secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers -so that Linux and -<a name="index-XFree86"></a> -XFree86 can support new hardware. We have complete -free systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot -support tomorrow’s computers. -</p> -<p>There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do -reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The -rest of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software; -as our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a -self-defeating policy. -</p> -<p>Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with -sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes—if we have built up a -strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and -nonfree drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend -extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers? -Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread. -</p> -<p>[2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well. -There is a free BIOS, coreboot; the problem is getting specs -for machines so that coreboot can support them.] -</p> -<a name="Nonfree-Libraries"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Nonfree Libraries </h3> - -<a name="index-traps_002c-nonfree-libraries"></a> -<a name="index-developers_002c-traps-for"></a> -<p>A nonfree library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap -for free software developers. The library’s attractive features are -the bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your -program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system. (Strictly -speaking, we could include your program, but it -won’t <em>run</em> with the library missing.) Even worse, if -a program that uses the proprietary library becomes popular, it can -lure other unsuspecting programmers into the trap. -</p> -<a name="index-Motif-_0028see-also-LessTif_0029"></a> -<p>The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the -80s. Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was -clear what problem Motif would cause for them later on. The GNU -Project responded in two ways: by asking individual free software -projects to support the free -<a name="index-X-Toolkit"></a> -X Toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and -by asking for someone to write a free replacement for Motif. The job -took many years; -<a name="index-LessTif-_0028see-also-Motif_0029-1"></a> -LessTif, developed by the -<a name="index-Hungry-Programmers"></a> -Hungry Programmers, became -powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997. -</p> -<a name="index-Qt"></a> -<a name="index-KDE"></a> -<p>Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree GUI toolkit library, called -Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop -KDE. -</p> -<p>Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, -because we could not use the library. However, some commercial -distributors of GNU/Linux systems who were not strict about sticking -with free software added KDE to their -systems—producing a system with more capabilities, but less freedom. -The KDE group was actively encouraging more -programmers to use Qt, and millions of new “Linux users” -had never been exposed to the idea that there was a problem in this. -The situation appeared grim. -</p> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNOME-_0028GNU-Network-Object-Model-Environment_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNOME-_0028GNU-Network-Object-Model-Environment_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-Harmony-1"></a> -<a name="index-Harmony-1"></a> -<p>The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: -GNOME and Harmony. -</p> -<a name="index-de-Icaza_002c-Miguel"></a> -<a name="index-Red-Hat-Software"></a> -<a name="index-C_002b_002b_002c-language"></a> -<p>GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is -GNU’s desktop project. Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and -developed with the support of Red Hat -Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop -facilities, but using free software exclusively. It has technical -advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not -just C++. But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of -any nonfree software. -</p> -<p>Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it -possible to run KDE software without using Qt. -</p> -<p>In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license -which, when carried out, should make Qt free software. There is no -way to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the -community’s firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was -nonfree. (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it -remains desirable to avoid using Qt.) -</p> -<p>[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the -GNU GPL, which essentially solved this problem.] -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-convenience-v_002e-1"></a> -<p>How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree library? Will the -whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will -many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major -problem? Our future depends on our philosophy. -</p> -<a name="Software-Patents"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Software Patents </h3> - -<a name="index-LZW-_0028Lempel_002dZiv_002dWelch_0029-data-compression-algorithm-_0028see-also-patents_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-patents"></a> -<a name="index-patents_002c-LZW-data-compression-algorithm"></a> -<p>The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put -algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to 20 -years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were -applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free software to -produce proper compressed -<a name="index-GIF"></a> -GIFs. [As of 2009 they have expired.] In 1998, a free program to produce -<a name="index-MP3"></a> -MP3 compressed audio was -removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit. -</p> -<p>There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a -patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. -But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a -patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users -want. What will we do when this happens? -</p> -<p>Those of us who value free software for freedom’s sake will stay with -free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the -patented features. But those who value free software because they -expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure -when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about -the practical effectiveness of the “bazaar” model of -development, and the reliability and power of some free software, -we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle. -</p> -<a name="Free-Documentation"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Free Documentation </h3> - -<a name="index-documentation-_0028see-also-both-FDL-and-manuals_0029"></a> -<a name="index-manuals_002c-need-for"></a> -<p>The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the -software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in -our systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software -package; when an important free software package does not come with a -good free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today. -</p> -<p>Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not -price. The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for -free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms. -Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, online -and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the -program. -</p> -<p>Permission for modification is crucial too. As a general rule, I -don’t believe that it is essential for people to have permission to -modify all sorts of articles and books. For example, I don’t think -you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this -one, which describe our actions and our views. -</p> -<p>But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial -for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right -to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are -conscientious they will change the manual, too—so they can -provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. -A nonfree manual, which does not allow programmers to be conscientious -and finish the job, does not fill our community’s needs. -</p> -<p>Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem. -For example, requirements to preserve the original author’s copyright -notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is -also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that -they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be -deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical -topics. These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they -don’t stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to -fit the modified program. In other words, they don’t block the free -software community from making full use of the manual. -</p> -<p>However, it must be possible to modify all the <em>technical</em> content of -the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media, -through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do -obstruct the community, the manual is not free, and we need another -manual. -</p> -<a name="index-developers_002c-manuals"></a> -<p>Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to -produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future -depends on philosophy. -</p> -<a name="index-documentation-_0028see-also-both-FDL-and-manuals_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-manuals_002c-need-for-1"></a> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-future-challenges-to-1"></a> - -<a name="We-Must-Talk-about-Freedom"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> We Must Talk about Freedom </h3> - -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-talk-about-freedom"></a> -<p>Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux -systems such as -<a name="index-Debian-GNU_002fLinux"></a> -Debian GNU/Linux and -<a name="index-Red-Hat-Linux-_0028see-also-_0060_0060Linux_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term_0029"></a> -Red Hat “Linux.” -Free software has developed such practical advantages that users are -flocking to it for purely practical reasons. -</p> -<a name="index-commercial-use-and-development-1"></a> -<p>The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing -free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more -ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software -instead of proprietary software products. -</p> -<p>But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the -philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble. Our ability to -meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to -stand firm for freedom. To make sure our community has this will, we -need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the -community. -</p> -<p>But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our -community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of -our community. We need to do both, and we need to keep the two -efforts in balance. -</p> -<a name="g_t_0060_0060Open-Source_0027_0027"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> “Open Source” </h3> - -<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of"></a> -<p>Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a -part of the community decided to stop using the term “free -software” and say “open source software” -instead. -</p> -<p>Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of -“free” with “gratis”—a valid goal. Others, -however, aimed to set aside the spirit of principle that had motivated -the free software movement and the GNU Project, and to appeal instead -to executives and business users, many of whom hold an ideology that -places profit above freedom, above community, above principle. Thus, -the rhetoric of “open source” focuses on the potential to -make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, -community, and principle. -</p> -<a name="index-_0060_0060Linux_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-_0028see-also-open-source_0029"></a> -<p>The “Linux” magazines are a clear example of this—they -are filled with advertisements for proprietary software that works -with GNU/Linux. When the next -<a name="index-Motif-_0028see-also-LessTif_0029-1"></a> -Motif or -<a name="index-Qt-1"></a> -Qt appears, will these -magazines warn programmers to stay away from it, or will they run ads -for it? -</p> -<p>The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways; -all else being equal, it is useful. But winning their support by -speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it -makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education -even worse. -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-open-source-v_002e-free-software"></a> -<a name="index-open-source_002c-essential-difference-between-free-software-and"></a> -<a name="index-free-software_002c-essential-difference-between-open-source-and"></a> -<p>“Free software” and “open source” describe the -same category of software, more or less, but say different things -about the software, and about values. The GNU Project continues to -use the term “free software,” to express the idea that -freedom, not just technology, is important. -<a name="index-_0060_0060open-source_002c_0027_0027-values-of-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Try_0021"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Try! </h3> - -<a name="index-Yoda"></a> -<p>Yoda’s aphorism (“There is no ‘try’”) sounds -neat, but it doesn’t work for me. I have done most of my work while -anxious about whether I could do the job, and unsure that it would be -enough to achieve the goal if I did. But I tried anyway, because -there was no one but me between the enemy and my city. Surprising -myself, I have sometimes succeeded. -</p> -<p>Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen. Then I found -another threatened city, and got ready for another battle. Over time, -I’ve learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my -city, calling on other -<a name="index-hackers-4"></a> -hackers to come and join me. -</p> -<p>Nowadays, often I’m not the only one. It is a relief and a joy when I -see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize, -this city may survive—for now. But the dangers are greater each -year, and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community. We -can’t take the future of freedom for granted. Don’t take it for -granted! If you want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to -defend it. -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-future-challenges-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU-Project-_0028see-also-GNU_0029-1"></a> -</p><div class="footnote"> -<hr><h3>Footnotes</h3> -<h3><a name="FOOT2" href="#DOCF2">(2)</a></h3> -<p>The use of -<a name="index-_0060_0060hacker_002c_0027_0027-actual-meaning-of-term-_0028see-also-_0060_0060cracker_0027_0027_0029"></a> -“hacker” to mean “security breaker” is a confusion on the part of -the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and -continue using the word to mean someone who loves to program, someone -who enjoys playful cleverness, or the combination of the two. See my -article, “On Hacking,” at -<a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html</a>. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT3" href="#DOCF3">(3)</a></h3> -<p>As an -Atheist, I don’t follow any religious leaders, but I sometimes find I -admire something one of them has said. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT4" href="#DOCF4">(4)</a></h3> -<p>In 1984 or 1985, -<a name="index-Hopkins_002c-Don"></a> -Don Hopkins (a very -imaginative fellow) mailed me a letter. On the envelope he had written -several amusing sayings, including this one: “Copyleft—all rights -reversed.” I used the word “copyleft” to name the distribution -concept I was developing at the time. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT5" href="#DOCF5">(5)</a></h3> -<p>We now use the -<a name="index-FDL-_0028see-also-both-manuals-and-documentation_0029"></a> -GNU Free -Documentation License (p. @refx{FDL-pg}{ -</p><h3><a name="FOOT6" href="#DOCF6">(6)</a></h3> -<p>“Bourne Again Shell” is a play on the name “Bourne -Shell,” which was the usual shell on Unix. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT7" href="#DOCF7">(7)</a></h3> -<p>That was written in 1998. In 2009 we no longer maintain a long -task list. The community develops free software so fast that we can’t -even keep track of it all. Instead, we have a list of High Priority -Projects, a much shorter list of projects we really want to encourage -people to write. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT8" href="#DOCF8">(8)</a></h3> -<p>This license is now called -the GNU Lesser General Public License, to avoid giving the idea that -all libraries ought to use it. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT9" href="#DOCF9">(9)</a></h3> -<p>Eric Raymond is a prominent open source advocate; see “Why Open -Source Misses the Point” (p. @refx{OS Misses Point-pg}{ -</p><h3><a name="FOOT10" href="#DOCF10">(10)</a></h3> -<p>Eric S. Raymond, <cite>The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and -Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary,</cite> rev. ed. (Sebastopol, -Calif.: O’Reilly, 2001), p. 23. -</p></div> -<hr size="2"></section></body></html> |