diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_4.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_4.html | 710 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 710 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_4.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_4.html deleted file mode 100644 index a028e5f9..00000000 --- a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_4.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,710 +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.: 4. The GNU Manifesto</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.: 4. The GNU Manifesto"><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="Manifesto"></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-Manifesto"></a> -<h1 class="chapter"> 4. The GNU Manifesto </h1> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-_0060_0060GNU-Manifesto_0027_0027"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060GNU-Manifesto_0027_0027"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-2"></a> - -<blockquote class="smallquotation"><p>The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman at the beginning of -the GNU Project, to ask for participation and support. For the first -few years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, -but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen -it.<br></p> -<p>Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings -that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added since 1993 help -clarify these points.<br></p> -<p>For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please -see the information available on our web server, in particular our -list of software. For how to contribute, see <a href="http://gnu.org/help">http://gnu.org/help</a>. -</p></blockquote> - -<a name="What_0027s-GNU_003f-Gnu_0027s-Not-Unix_0021"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> What’s GNU? Gnu’s Not Unix! </h3> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-announcement-of-1"></a> -<p>GNU, which stands for Gnu’s Not Unix, is the name for the complete -Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give -it away free to everyone who can use it.<a name="DOCF12" href="#FOOT12">(12)</a> Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions -of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed. -</p> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-operating-system-parts-4"></a> -<p> So far we have an -<a name="index-Emacs_002c-GNU-4"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Emacs-4"></a> -Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor -commands, a source level debugger, a -<a name="index-yacc-1"></a> -yacc-compatible parser generator, -a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is -nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled -itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but -many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and -compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system -suitable for program development. We will use -<a name="index-TeX-1"></a> -TeX as our text -formatter, but an -<a name="index-nroff"></a> -nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, -portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable -<a name="index-Common-Lisp"></a> -<a name="index-Lisp_002c-Common"></a> -<a name="index-Empire-game-1"></a> -<a name="index-games_002c-Empire-1"></a> -Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other -things, plus online documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, -everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more. -</p> - -<p> GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to -Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our -experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to -have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, -file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and -perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several -Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C -and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will -try to support -<a name="index-UUCP-1"></a> -UUCP, -<a name="index-MIT_002c-Chaosnet-2"></a> -MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for -communication. -</p> -<p> GNU is aimed initially at machines in the -<a name="index-68000_002dclass-hardware-2"></a> -68000/16000 class with -virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run -on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left -to someone who wants to use it on them. -</p> -<p> To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the <em>g</em> -in the word “GNU” when it is the name of this project. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-2"></a> -</p> -<a name="Why-I-Must-Write-GNU"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Why I Must Write GNU </h3> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-motivation-to-write"></a> -<p> I consider that the -<a name="index-Golden-Rule-1"></a> -Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I -must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to -divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share -with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this -way. I cannot in good conscience sign a -<a name="index-nondisclosure-agreements-4"></a> -nondisclosure agreement or a -software license agreement. For years I worked within the -<a name="index-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab_002c-MIT-_0028see-also-MIT_0029-1"></a> -Artificial -Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, -but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an -institution where such things are done for me against my will. -</p> -<p> So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have -decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I -will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I -have resigned from the -<a name="index-MIT_002c-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab-3"></a> -AI Lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent -me from giving GNU away.<a name="DOCF13" href="#FOOT13">(13)</a>) for more -explanation. - -</p> -<a name="Why-GNU-Will-Be-Compatible-with-Unix"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix </h3> - -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-reason-for-1"></a> -<p> Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential -features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what -Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix -would be convenient for many other people to adopt. -</p> -<a name="How-GNU-Will-Be-Available"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> How GNU Will Be Available </h3> - -<a name="index-public-domain-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-programs-_0028see-also-software_0029"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-3"></a> -<p> GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to -modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to -restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, -proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all -versions of GNU remain free. -</p> -<a name="Why-Many-Other-Programmers-Want-to-Help"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help </h3> - -<a name="index-programmers_002c-incentive-for"></a> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-psychosocial-harm-to"></a> -<p> I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and -want to help. - Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system -software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them -to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel -as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the -sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used -essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The -purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the -law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But -those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. -They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making -money. -</p> -<p> By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can -be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as -an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in -sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if -we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I -talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace. -</p> -<a name="How-You-Can-Contribute"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> How You Can Contribute </h3> - -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-contribute-to-GNU-1"></a> -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-donate"></a> - -<p>I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and -money. I’m asking individuals for donations of programs and -work.<a name="DOCF14" href="#FOOT14">(14)</a> -</p> -<p> One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU -will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, -ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not -in need of sophisticated cooling or power. -</p> -<p> I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time -work for GNU. -<a name="index-Unix-compatibility_002c-ease-of-contribution-because-of-1"></a> -For most projects, such part-time distributed work would -be very hard to coordinate; the independently written parts would not -work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this -problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility -programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface -specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor -can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make -it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these -utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy -to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will -be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and -will be worked on by a small, tight group.) -</p> -<p> If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full -or part time. The salary won’t be high by programmers’ standards, but -I’m looking for people for whom building community spirit is as -important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated -people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them -the need to make a living in another way. -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-donate-1"></a> -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-contribute-to-GNU-2"></a> -</p> -<a name="Why-All-Computer-Users-Will-Benefit"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Why All Computer Users Will Benefit </h3> - -<a name="index-users_002c-benefit-to"></a> -<p> Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system -software free, just like air.<a name="DOCF15" href="#FOOT15">(15)</a> -</p> -<p> This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix -license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming -effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the -state of the art. -</p> -<p> Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, -a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them -himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for -him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company -which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. -</p> -<a name="index-education_002c-free-software-in"></a> -<a name="index-schools_002c-free-software-in"></a> -<p> Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment -by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. -Harvard’s computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be -installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and -upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very -much inspired by this. -</p> -<p> Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software -and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. -</p> -<p> Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including -licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through -the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, -which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can -force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must -be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air -may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is -intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the -TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are -outrageous. It’s better to support the air plant with a head tax and -chuck the masks. -</p> -<p> Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as -breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free. -</p> -<a name="Some-Easily-Rebutted-Objections-to-GNU_0027s-Goals"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU’s Goals </h3> - -<a name="index-GNU_002c-objections-to"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-user-support"></a> -<a name="index-users_002c-technical-support-for-GNU"></a> -<p>&bullet; <strong>“Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can’t rely on any support.”</strong> -</p> -<p>&bullet;<strong>“You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support.”</strong> -</p> -<p> If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free -without service, a company to provide just service to people who have -obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.<a name="DOCF16" href="#FOOT16">(16)</a> -</p> -<p> We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming -work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on -from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough -people, the vendor will tell you to get lost. -</p> -<p> If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way -is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any -available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any -individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of -consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is -still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this -problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not -eliminate all the world’s problems, only some of them. -</p> -<p> Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need -handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do -themselves but don’t know how. -</p> -<p> Such services could be provided by companies that sell just -handholding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather -spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing -to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies -will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any -particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don’t need the service -should be able to use the program without paying for the service. -<br><a name="index-GNU_002c-advertising-for"></a> -&bullet; <strong>“You cannot reach many people without advertising, and -you must charge for the program to support that.”</strong><br> -&bullet; <strong>“It’s no use advertising a program people can get -free.”</strong> -</p> -<p> There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be -used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But -it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with -advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the -service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful -enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users -who benefit from the advertising pay for it. -</p> -<p> On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and -such companies don’t succeed, this will show that advertising was not -really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates -don’t want to let the free market decide this?<a name="DOCF17" href="#FOOT17">(17)</a> -<br><a name="index-competition_002c-impact-on"></a> -&bullet; <strong>“My company needs a proprietary operating system to get -a competitive edge.”</strong> -</p> -<p> GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of -competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but -neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and -they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this -one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not -like GNU, but that’s tough on you. If your business is something else, -GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of -selling operating systems. -</p> -<p> I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many -manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.<a name="DOCF18" href="#FOOT18">(18)</a> -<br><a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-2"></a> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement"></a> -&bullet; <strong>“Don’t programmers deserve a reward for their -creativity?”</strong> -</p> -<p> If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. -Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society -is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for -creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be -punished if they restrict the use of these programs. -<br> -&bullet; <strong>“Shouldn’t a programmer be able to ask for a reward for -his creativity?”</strong> -</p> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-3"></a> -<p> There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to -maximize one’s income, as long as one does not use means that are -destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today -are based on destruction. -</p> -<p> Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of -it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the -ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth -that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate -choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-Golden-Rule-1"></a> -<p> The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to -become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become -poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is -<a name="index-Kantian-ethics"></a> -Kantian ethics; or, -<a name="index-Golden-Rule-2"></a> -the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if -everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one -to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one’s creativity -does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that -creativity. -<br> -&bullet; <strong>“Won’t programmers starve?”</strong> -</p> -<p> I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us -cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making -faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives -standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something -else. -</p> -<p> But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner’s -implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers -cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. -</p> -<p> The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be -possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as -now. -</p> -<p> Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. -It is the most common basis<a name="DOCF19" href="#FOOT19">(19)</a> because it -brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the -customer, software business would move to other bases of organization -which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to -organize any kind of business. -</p> -<p> Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it -is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not -considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they -now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice -either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than -that.) -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-4"></a> -<br></p> -<p>&bullet; <strong>“Don’t people have a right to control how their creativity is used?”</strong> -</p> -<a name="index-patents-1"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029"></a> -<p>“Control over the use of one’s ideas” really constitutes -control over other people’s lives; and it is usually used to make -their lives more difficult. -</p> -<p> People who have studied the issue of intellectual property -rights<a name="DOCF20" href="#FOOT20">(20)</a>) for further explanation of how this -term spreads confusion and bias. - carefully (such as lawyers) say that -there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of -supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes -were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes. -</p> -<p> For example, the patent system was established to encourage -inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was -to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life -span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of -advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among -manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are -small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do -much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented -products. -</p> -<p> The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors -frequently copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. This -practice was useful, and is the only way many authors’ works have -survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for -the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was -invented—books, which could be copied economically only on a printing -press—it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals -who read the books. -</p> -<p> All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society -because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole -would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we -have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind -of act are we licensing a person to do? -<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-1"></a> -</p> -<p> The case of programs today is very different from that of books a -hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is -from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source -code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is -used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in -which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole -both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so -regardless of whether the law enables him to. -<a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement-1"></a> -<br><a name="index-competition_002c-impact-on-1"></a> -&bullet; <strong>“Competition makes things get done -better.”</strong> -</p> -<p> The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we -encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this -way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it -always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered -and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other -strategies—such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into -a fist fight, they will all finish late. -</p> -<p> Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners -in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we’ve got does not seem -to object to fights; he just regulates them (“For every ten -yards you run, you can fire one shot”). He really ought to -break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight. -<br><a name="index-programmers_002c-incentive-for-1"></a> -&bullet; <strong>“Won’t everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?”</strong> -</p> -<p> Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary -incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some -people, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of -professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of -making a living that way. -</p> -<p> But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate -to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become -less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced -monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will. -</p> -<a name="index-AI-_0028Artificial-Intelligence_0029-Lab_002c-MIT-_0028see-also-MIT_0029-2"></a> -<p> For more than ten years, many of the world’s best programmers worked -at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could -have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of nonmonetary rewards: -fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a -reward in itself. -</p> -<p> Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same -interesting work for a lot of money. -</p> -<p> What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other -than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they -will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly -in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly -if the high-paying ones are banned. -<a name="index-programmers_002c-incentive-for-2"></a> -<br> -&bullet; <strong>“We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.”</strong> -</p> -<p> You’re never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. -Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute! -<br></p> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-5"></a> -<a name="index-development_002c-funding-for-2"></a> -<p>&bullet; <strong>“Programmers need to make a living somehow.”</strong> -</p> -<p> In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways -that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a -program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and -businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a -living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here -are a number of examples. -</p> -<p> A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of -operating systems onto the new hardware. -</p> -<p> The sale of teaching, handholding and maintenance services could -also employ programmers. -</p> -<a name="index-freeware-_0028see-also-software_0029"></a> -<p>People with new ideas could distribute programs as -freeware,<a name="DOCF21" href="#FOOT21">(21)</a>) for more explanation. - asking for donations from satisfied -users, or selling handholding services. I have met people who are -already working this way successfully. -</p> -<p> Users with related needs can form users’ groups, and pay dues. A -group would contract with programming companies to write programs that -the group’s members would like to use. -</p> -<a name="index-software_002c-software-tax"></a> -<p> All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: -</p> -<p> Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay <em>x</em> percent of the - price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency - like the -<a name="index-National-Science-Foundation-_0028NSF_0029"></a> -NSF to spend on software development. -</p> -<p> But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development - himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to - the project of his own choosing—often, chosen because he hopes to - use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any - amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay. -</p> - -<p> The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the - tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on. -</p> - -<p> The consequences: -</p> -<ul><li> -The computer-using community supports software development. - -</li><li> -This community decides what level of support is needed. - -</li><li> -Users who care which projects their share is spent on can choose this for themselves. - -</li></ul><p> In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the -postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to -make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities -that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten -hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, -robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be -able to make a living from programming. -</p> -<a name="index-users_002c-benefit-to-1"></a> -<p> We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole -society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this -has translated itself into leisure for workers because much -nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity. -The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against -competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the -area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical -gains in productivity to translate into less work for us. -<a name="index-GNU_002c-objections-to-1"></a> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-6"></a> -<a name="index-development_002c-funding-for-3"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060GNU-Manifesto_0027_0027-1"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-_0060_0060GNU-Manifesto_0027_0027-1"></a> -</p> -<div class="footnote"> -<hr><h3>Footnotes</h3> -<h3><a name="FOOT12" href="#DOCF12">(12)</a></h3> -<p>The wording here was -careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for -<em>permission</em> to use the GNU system. But the words don’t make this -clear, and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU -should always be distributed at little or no charge. That was never -the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of -companies providing the service of distribution for a -profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between -“free” in the sense of freedom and “free” in the sense of -price. Free software is software that users have the freedom to -distribute and change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, -while others pay to obtain copies—and if the funds help support -improving the software, so much the better. The important thing is -that everyone who has a copy has the freedom to cooperate with others -in using it. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT13" href="#DOCF13">(13)</a></h3> -<p>The expression -<a name="index-_0060_0060give-away-software_002c_0027_0027-misleading-use-of-term"></a> -“give away” is another indication that I had not yet clearly -separated the issue of price from that of freedom. We now recommend -avoiding this expression when talking about free software. See “Words -to Avoid (or Use with Care)” -</p><h3><a name="FOOT14" href="#DOCF14">(14)</a></h3> -<p>Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the -<a name="index-High-Priority-Projects-list"></a> -High Priority Projects list, at -<a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/">http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/</a>, and the -<a name="index-GNU-Help-Wanted-list"></a> -GNU -Help Wanted list, the general task list for GNU software packages, at -<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/people/?type_id=1">http://savannah.gnu.org/people/?type_id=1</a>. For other ways to -help, see <a href="http://gnu.org/help/help.html">http://gnu.org/help/help.html</a>. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT15" href="#DOCF15">(15)</a></h3> -<p>This is another place I failed -to distinguish carefully between the two different meanings of -“free.” The statement as it stands is not false—you can get copies -of GNU software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But -it does suggest the wrong idea. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT16" href="#DOCF16">(16)</a></h3> -<p>Several such companies now exist. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT17" href="#DOCF17">(17)</a></h3> -<p>Although it is -a charity rather than a company, the -<a name="index-FSF_002c-fundraising-1"></a> -<a name="index-FSF_002c-how-you-can-help"></a> -Free Software Foundation for 10 -years raised most of its funds from its distribution service. You can -order things from the FSF to support its work. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT18" href="#DOCF18">(18)</a></h3> -<p>A group -of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to support maintenance -of the -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-compiler-_0028see-also-GNU_002c-GCC_0029-1"></a> -GNU C Compiler. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT19" href="#DOCF19">(19)</a></h3> -<p>I think I was mistaken in saying -that proprietary software was the most common basis for making money -in software. It seems that actually the most common business model was -and is development of custom software. That does not offer the -possibility of collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing -real work in order to keep getting income. The custom software -business would continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free -software world. Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid -programmers would earn less in a free software world. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT20" href="#DOCF20">(20)</a></h3> -<p>In the 1980s I had not yet realized how confusing it -was to speak of “the issue” of “intellectual property.” That term -is obviously biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together -various disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I -urge people to reject the term “intellectual property” entirely, -lest it lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent -issue. The way to be clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and -<a name="index-trademarks-and_002for-trademark-law"></a> -trademarks separately. See “Did You Say ‘Intellectual Property’? It’s -a Seductive Mirage”. -</p><h3><a name="FOOT21" href="#DOCF21">(21)</a></h3> -<p>Subsequently we learned to distinguish between -“free software” and “freeware.” The term “freeware” means -software you are free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to -study and change the source code, so most of it is not free -software. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)”. -</p></div> -<hr size="2"></section></body></html> |