diff options
author | MS <ms@taler.net> | 2020-07-22 14:53:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | MS <ms@taler.net> | 2020-07-22 14:53:45 +0200 |
commit | 2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c (patch) | |
tree | 173f7917c5d0af822d2d51ed491c3cf2d8eaf23f /talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html | |
download | taler-merchant-demos-2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c.tar.gz taler-merchant-demos-2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c.tar.bz2 taler-merchant-demos-2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c.zip |
Installing the Blog
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html | 227 |
1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db687a9 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html @@ -0,0 +1,227 @@ +<!-- 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. + --> + + + <a name="The-X-Window-System-Trap"> + </a> + <h1 class="chapter"> + 36. The X Window System Trap + </h1> + <a name="index-traps_002c-X-Window-System"> + </a> + <a name="index-X-Window-System-5"> + </a> + <a name="index-developers_002c-to-copyleft-or-not-to-copyleft_003f"> + </a> + <p> + To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major +controversies in the free software community. The idea of copyleft is +that we should fight fire with fire—that we should use copyright +to make sure our code stays free. The GNU General Public License (GNU +GPL) is one example of a copyleft license. + </p> + <p> + Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution. +Noncopyleft licenses such as the + <a name="index-XFree86-license"> + </a> + XFree86 and + <a name="index-BSD-licenses-_0028see-also-both-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_0027_0027-and-GPL_0029-2"> + </a> + BSD licenses are based on the idea +of never saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to +use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft +licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to +actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For +that, we need copyleft. + </p> + <a name="index-copylefted-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-3"> + </a> + <a name="index-copyleft_002c-X-Consortium-opposition-to"> + </a> + <a name="index-X-Consortium-_0028see-also-Open-Group_002c-its-successor_0029-3"> + </a> + <p> + For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft. +It exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software +developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by +suggesting that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through +its rule that copylefted software could not be in the X Distribution. + </p> + <p> + Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their +conception of success. The X Consortium defined success as +popularity—specifically, getting computer companies to use the X +Window System. This definition put the computer companies in the +driver’s seat: whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help +them get it. + </p> + <p> + Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They +wanted free software developers to donate their work for such use. If +they had asked for this directly, people would have laughed. But the +X Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as an +unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software +developers,” they said, suggesting that this is a noble form of +self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,” they said, +suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice. + </p> + <p> + But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that +copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community, +is sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X +Consortium’s request entrusted the community’s future to the goodwill +of the X Consortium. + </p> + <a name="index-X11R6_002e4-1"> + </a> + <p> + This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a +plan to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it would not +be free software. They decided to start saying no, not only to +proprietary software developers, but to our community as well. + </p> + <p> + There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked +you not to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to +license and restrict its version of your program, along with the +code for the core of X. + </p> + <p> + The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down +and transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now +carrying out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them +to release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned +restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They +were firmly against staying with the old + <a name="index-X11-licenses-3"> + </a> + X11 distribution terms.) +Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed for +another reason: the + <a name="index-XFree86-1"> + </a> + XFree86 group followed the X Consortium’s old +policy, and will not accept copylefted software. + <a name="index-copylefted-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-4"> + </a> + </p> + <p> + In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with +nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and +rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that +was used for X11R6.3. Thus, the Open Group therefore eventually did +what was right, but that does not alter the general issue. + <a name="index-X11R6_002e4-2"> + </a> + </p> + <p> + Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to +restrict X, someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software +is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree +version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add +significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who +choose software based on technical characteristics, rather than on +freedom, could easily be lured to the nonfree version for short-term +convenience. + </p> + <p> + The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by +saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide +to copyleft your X-related software. + <a name="index-X-Consortium-_0028see-also-Open-Group_002c-its-successor_0029-4"> + </a> + <a name="index-copyleft_002c-X-Consortium-opposition-to-1"> + </a> + </p> + <p> + When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, +Xlib, and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The + <a name="index-X_002eorg"> + </a> + X.org group does an important job for the community in maintaining +these programs, and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be +less than the harm done by a fork in development. So it is better to +work with them, and not copyleft our changes on these programs. +Likewise for utilities such as + <a name="index-xset"> + </a> + <code> + xset + </code> + and + <a name="index-xrdb"> + </a> + <code> + xrdb + </code> + , which are close to the +core of X and do not need major improvements. At least we know that +the X.org group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as +free software. + </p> + <p> + The issue is different for programs outside the core of X: +applications, window managers, and additional libraries and widgets. +There is no reason not to copyleft them, and we should copyleft them. + </p> + <p> + In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for +inclusion in the X distributions, the + <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-9"> + </a> + GNU Project will undertake to +publicize copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to +copyleft something, and you worry that its omission from the X +distribution will impede its popularity, please ask us to help. + </p> + <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-resist-illusory-temptations-of-proprietary-software"> + </a> + <p> + At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for +popularity. When a businessman tempts you with “more +popularity,” he may try to convince you that his use of your +program is crucial to its success. Don’t believe it! If your program +is good, it will find many users anyway; you don’t need to feel +desperate for any particular users, and you will be stronger if you do +not. You can get an indescribable sense of joy and freedom by +responding, “Take it or leave it—that’s no skin off my +back.” Often the businessman will turn around and accept the +program with copyleft, once you call the bluff. + </p> + <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-copyleft-your-software"> + </a> + <p> + Friends, free software developers, don’t repeat old mistakes! If we +do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone +equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can +defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole +community. + <a name="index-developers_002c-to-copyleft-or-not-to-copyleft_003f-1"> + </a> + <a name="index-X-Window-System-6"> + </a> + <a name="index-traps_002c-X-Window-System-1"> + </a> + </p> + <hr size="2"/> + |