diff options
author | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org> | 2020-10-11 13:29:45 +0200 |
commit | 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce (patch) | |
tree | 53117a55c27601e92172ea82f1d8cd11d355c06c /talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html | |
parent | 2e665813a44988bfd906c0fab773f82652047841 (diff) | |
download | taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.gz taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.tar.bz2 taler-merchant-demos-1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce.zip |
add i18n FSFS
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html | 376 |
1 files changed, 376 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ca33d7c --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2> + +<address class="byline">by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard +Stallman</a></address> + +<p><em>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a +href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before"> +Wired</a>.</em></p> + +<p><em>Watch a <a +href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society/"> +14-min video presentation</a> of these ideas.</em></p> + +<div class="announcement"> +<p> +<a href="/help/help.html">Suggested ways you can help the free software movement</a> +</p> +</div> +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer +users' freedom—for users to control the software they +use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom +and community, we call it “free software.”</p> + +<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize +that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary +(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, +such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor +detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power +over the users, power that no one should have.</p> + +<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are +both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities designed to +mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware +because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power +corrupts them</a>. That directory lists around 450 different +malicious functionalities (as of January, 2020), but it is surely just the +tip of the iceberg.</p> + +<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually +and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming +those computers are <a href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a> +and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p> + +<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some +other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the +program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over +its users. That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer to +mistreat the users in other ways.</p> + +<p>Even when proprietary software isn't downright malicious, its +developers have an incentive to make it +<a href="https://observer.com/2016/06/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Afrom-a-magician-and-googles-design-ethicist/"> +addictive, +controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of +that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do +that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not +to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its users.</p> + +<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a +program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on +your having control over the program. You deserve to have control +over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for +something important in your life.</p> + +<p>Users' control over the program requires four +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>. +</p> + +<div class="important"> +<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose.</p> + +<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”, +and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish. +Programs are written by programmers in a programming +language—like English combined with algebra—and that form +of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows +programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the +source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all +you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient +for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to +understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are +forbiddingly hard.</p> + +<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish. +(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program +is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a +copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy. +Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them; +however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it +privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p> + +<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified +versions, when you wish.</p> +</div> + +<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual +control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of +users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the +program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program. +If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary +(nonfree), and unjust.</p> + +<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including +recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference +works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying +paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, +and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a +3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement +strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies +and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four +freedoms.</p> + +<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you +want (or cease to do something you dislike). Tinkering with software +may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as +a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a +good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime +of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree +software.</p> + +<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3> + +<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the +users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the +developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the +program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A +nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p> + +<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a +href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed +to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>. +For instance, the operating system of Apple <a +href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">iThings</a> does all of these, +and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile +phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back +door that allows some company to change the program remotely without +asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase +books.</p> + +<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things” +would turn it into +the <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet +of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of +snoopers”.</p> + +<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free +software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves. +We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a +href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers +run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux +combination</a>.</p> + +<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; +however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat +anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no +wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's +not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must +be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms, +but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p> + +<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3> + +<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of +people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as +a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's +server do your own computing tasks.</p> + +<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they +often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a +nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the +example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the +server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say) +and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of +translating is under the control of the server operator rather than +the user.</p> + +<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It +requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator, +which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a +href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who +does that server really serve, after all?</a></p> + +<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3> + +<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong +to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For +your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a +promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser +evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise +at all.</p> + +<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly +on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person +uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to +use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. +(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest +using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even +on someone else's computer.</p> + +<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards +the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or +“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling +under the company's thumb.</p> + +<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a +public entity or a school.</p> + +<h3>Free Software and the State</h3> + +<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they +do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain +full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done +properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational +sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the +state's computing to fall into private hands.</p> + +<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must +not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an +entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a +service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since +this would be SaaSS.</p> + +<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case +— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack. +<a href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/"> +Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital +spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does +likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft. +If the government of any other country uses such software, it +endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your +government's computers? See +our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested +policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p> + +<h3>Free Software and Education</h3> + +<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the +future of society through what they teach. They should teach +exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good. +To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes +against the mission of education. By training in use of free +software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and +help talented programmers master the craft.</p> + +<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping +other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this +class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software +to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share +copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source +code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing +proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse +engineer it.”</p> + +<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good +enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to +want to change it. This means a bad education. See +<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a> +for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p> + +<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3> + +<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free +software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it +comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that +applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We +must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services +control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for +selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p> + +<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying +people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of +a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very +much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our +work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit +and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which +stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed +to”, is antisocial.</p> + +<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a +program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed +versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of +cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids +redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it +blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your +computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone +else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that +does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p> + +<h3>Conclusion</h3> + +<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win +this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own +or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a +href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free +software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to +develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a +href="/help/help.html">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p> + +<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how +we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that +anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a +programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/10/06 08:00:29 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |