summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
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.html376
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&mdash;for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it &ldquo;libre software&rdquo; 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&mdash;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 &ldquo;owner&rdquo;) 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 &ldquo;source code&rdquo;,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language&mdash;like English combined with algebra&mdash;and that form
+of the program is the &ldquo;source code&rdquo;. 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&mdash;using it
+privately&mdash;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 &ldquo;owner&rdquo; of the program, that controls the
+program&mdash;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 &ldquo;internet of things&rdquo;
+would turn it into
+the <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">&ldquo;internet
+of telemarketers&rdquo;</a> as well as the &ldquo;internet of
+snoopers&rdquo;.</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&mdash;<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&mdash;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
+&ldquo;service&rdquo;, 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
+&mdash; 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: &ldquo;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&mdash;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&nbsp;it.&rdquo;</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 &ldquo;Advantages&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the &ldquo;advantages&rdquo; of free
+software. But the word &ldquo;advantages&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;not supposed
+to&rdquo;, 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&nbsp;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&mdash;programmer or not&mdash;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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 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>