diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html | 355 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 355 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html deleted file mode 100644 index 7a8215eb..00000000 --- a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,355 +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.: 5. Why Software Should Not Have Owners</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.: 5. Why Software Should Not Have Owners"><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="Why-Free"></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="Why-Software-Should-Not-Have-Owners"></a> -<h1 class="chapter"> 5. Why Software Should Not Have Owners </h1> - -<a name="index-competition_002c-impact-on-2"></a> -<a name="index-copyright_002c-digital-technology-and"></a> -<p>Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it -easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this -easier for all of us. -</p> -<p>Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives -software programs “owners,” most of whom aim to withhold -software’s potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would -like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we -use. -</p> -<p>The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for -mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology -because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not -take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did -not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and -few readers were sued for that. -</p> -<a name="index-ownership_002c-and-Soviet_002dstyle-information-control"></a> -<p>Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when -information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with -others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like -copyright. That’s the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian -measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four -practices of the -<a name="index-Software-Publishers-Association-_0028SPA_0029"></a> -Software Publishers Association (SPA): -</p> -<a name="index-copyright_002c-enforcement-measures"></a> -<ul><li> -Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners -to help your friend. - -</li><li> -Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and -colleagues. - -</li><li> -Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are -told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying. - -</li><li> -Prosecution (by the US government, at the -<a name="index-Software-Publishers-Association-_0028SPA_0029-1"></a> -SPA’s request) -of people such as MIT’s -<a name="index-LaMacchia_002c-David"></a> -David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of -copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and -failing to censor their use.<a name="DOCF22" href="#FOOT22">(22)</a> - -</li></ul><p>All four practices resemble those used in the former -<a name="index-Soviet-Union"></a> -Soviet Union, -where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, -and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it -from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a -difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was -political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that -affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of -information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same -harshness. -</p> -<p>Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power -to control how we use information: -<a name="index-ownership_002c-and-Soviet_002dstyle-information-control-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Name-Calling"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Name Calling </h3> - -<a name="index-ownership_002c-arguments-for"></a> -<a name="index-users_002c-arguments-used-to-justify-control-over"></a> -<a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-2"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-2"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060theft_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060damage_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"></a> -<p>Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and -“theft,” as well as expert terminology such as -“intellectual property” and “damage,” to -suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic -analogy between programs and physical objects. -</p> -<p>Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about -whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone else. They -don’t directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But the owners -ask us to apply them anyway. -</p> -<a name="Exaggeration"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Exaggeration </h3> - -<p>Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic -loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has -no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can -lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid -for one from the owner. -</p> -<p>A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought -copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each -and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to -put it kindly. -</p> -<a name="The-Law"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> The Law </h3> - -<p>Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh -penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the -suggestion that today’s law reflects an unquestionable view of -morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these -penalties as facts of nature that can’t be blamed on anyone. -</p> -<p>This line of persuasion isn’t designed to stand up to critical -thinking; it’s intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway. -</p> -<p>It’s elementary that laws don’t decide right and wrong. Every American -should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many -states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only -racists would say sitting there was wrong. -</p> -<a name="Natural-Rights"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Natural Rights </h3> - -<a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement-2"></a> -<a name="index-users_002c-premise-of-author-supremacy-_0028see-also-ownership_0029"></a> -<p>Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have -written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and -interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone -else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically -companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are -expected to ignore this discrepancy.) -</p> -<p>To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more -important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software -author myself, call it bunk. -</p> -<p>But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the -natural rights claims for two reasons. -</p> -<a name="index-software_002c-overstretched-analogy-with-material-objects"></a> -<p>One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I -cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I -cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits -him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one? -The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical -balance. -</p> -<p>But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly -and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend -affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn’t -have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should. -</p> -<p>The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights -for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society. -</p> -<p>As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural -rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the -<a name="index-Constitution_002c-authors_0027-natural-rights-and-US"></a> -US -Constitution was drawn up. That’s why the Constitution only -<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em> -one; that’s why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also -states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not -to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and -publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their -behavior. -</p> -<p>The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts -into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be -justified for the public’s sake. -<a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement-3"></a> -<a name="index-users_002c-premise-of-author-supremacy-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-1"></a> -</p> -<a name="Economics"></a> -<h3 class="subheading"> Economics </h3> - -<p>The final argument made for having owners of software is that this -leads to production of more software. -</p> -<p>Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach -to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the -users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will -produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so. -</p> -<p>But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption -that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. -It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want, -whether the software has owners or not. -</p> -<a name="index-software_002c-overstretched-analogy-with-material-objects-1"></a> -<p>People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our -experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. -You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or -for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. -Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, -the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it -once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot -directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards. -</p> -<p>This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it -has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is,</em> or what you -can do with it if you acquire it. -</p> -<p>But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and -what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not -just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages -software owners to produce something—but not what society really -needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us -all. -<a name="index-users_002c-arguments-used-to-justify-control-over-1"></a> -<a name="index-ownership_002c-arguments-for-1"></a> -</p> -<br><p>What does society need? It needs information that is truly available -to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, -adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners -typically deliver is a black box that we can’t study or change. -</p> -<p>Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users -lose freedom to control part of their own lives. -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-cooperation"></a> -<a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-3"></a> -<p>And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary -cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that -helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy,” they -pollute our society’s civic spirit. -</p> -<p>This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price. -</p> -<p>The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue -is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of -writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software -than those people write, we need to raise funds. -</p> -<a name="index-developers_002c-funding-for"></a> -<a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-7"></a> -<p>Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods -of finding funds, with some success. There’s no need to make anyone -rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are -less satisfying than programming. -</p> -<a name="index-Stallman_002c-Richard-2"></a> -<p>For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living -from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each -enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus -eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so -that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the -features I would otherwise have considered highest priority. -</p> -<p>Some free software developers make money by selling support services. -In 1994, -<a name="index-Cygnus-Support"></a> -Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that -about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software -development—a respectable percentage for a software company. -</p> -<p>In the early 1990s, companies including -<a name="index-Intel-_0028see-also-_0060_0060trusted-computing_0027_0027_0029"></a> -Intel, -<a name="index-Motorola-1"></a> -Motorola, -<a name="index-Texas-Instruments"></a> -<a name="index-Analog-Devices"></a> -Analog Devices -Texas Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued -development of the -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-compiler-_0028see-also-GNU_002c-GCC_0029-2"></a> -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-2"></a> -GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done -by paid developers. The -<a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-compiler"></a> -GNU compiler for the -<a name="index-Ada-language"></a> -Ada language was funded -in the 90s by the -<a name="index-Air-Force_002c-US"></a> -US Air Force, and continued since then by a company -formed specifically for the purpose. -</p> -<p>The free software movement is still small, but the example of -listener-supported radio in the US shows it’s possible to support a -large activity without forcing each user to pay. -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-cooperation-1"></a> -<p>As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a -proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to -refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But -underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A -person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and -this means saying no to proprietary software. -</p> -<p>You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other -people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the -software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be -able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. -</p> -<p>You deserve free software. -</p><div class="footnote"> -<hr><h3>Footnotes</h3> -<h3><a name="FOOT22" href="#DOCF22">(22)</a></h3> -<p>The charges were subsequently -dismissed. -</p></div> -<hr size="2"></section></body></html> |