diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html | 1366 |
1 files changed, 1366 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f104a7b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_2.html @@ -0,0 +1,1366 @@ +<!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="../style.css"> + + +</head> + +<body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> + +<a name="GNU-Project"></a> +<header><div id="logo"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></div><h1>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"> +</body> +</html> |