diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html | 355 |
1 files changed, 355 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..1ff002c8 --- /dev/null +++ b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ +<!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="../style.css"></head><body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> + +<a name="Why-Free"></a> +<header><div id="logo"><a href="/"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></a></div><h1>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> |