diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html | 437 |
1 files changed, 437 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18de75b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html @@ -0,0 +1,437 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --> +<title>History and Philosophy of the GNU Project +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!-- top-addendum is disabled because the original text was written in German + rather than in English, which is clearly stated in the article itself --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/greve-clown.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>History and Philosophy of the GNU Project</h2> + +<address class="byline"><strong>Georg C. F. Greve</strong> +<a href="mailto:greve@gnu.org"><greve@gnu.org></a></address> + +<p><em>Translation of a speech that was given in German +at the CLOWN (Cluster of Working Nodes— +a 512-node cluster project of Debian GNU/Linux machines) in the +University of Paderborn, Germany, on December 5th, 1998.</em></p> + +<p><em>The +<a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">German original</a> +is also available. Reading the original is recommended.</em></p> + +<hr class="thin" /> + +<div class="article"> +<blockquote> +<p> +Author's note: In translating this speech, I have tried to stay as close as +possible to the original speech that I have given in German. Breaking +up the German structures and turning them into reasonable English has +been quite some work, and I would like to thank my roommate Doug +Chapin, a good friend and native American, who helped me with some +phrases and words. The translation will never hold the same emotions +and implications, but I think we got very close… +</p> +</blockquote> +<p> +During the preparation of this speech, I have read several documents +and spoken to a lot of people. In doing so, I realized that even people +whose jobs have been created more or less directly by the GNU Project +did not know its true meaning. In the overall rush we are +experiencing at the moment, it seems that a basic awareness of the +roots has been lost. Tonight I hope I'll be able to uncover some of +those roots again.</p> + +<p> +The origin lies somewhere in the transition from the 70's to the 80's, +when the software industry became what we accept so willingly +today. In the initial competition, some firms took to hoarding code as +a survival strategy. While attempting to support this behavior's +legality, they created phrases like “software piracy” +because they suggest that something is lost when software is +copied. People were forced to yield to licenses that bound them, to +make sure that no one else had access to these programs.</p> + +<p> +When a friend asked you whether he could copy a program from you, you +immediately faced a dilemma. There are no disadvantages for you in +copying the program, and it doesn't deteriorate during the copying +process. It would be more restrictive if he asked you to pass +the salt, since you can't both use it at the same time. The politics +of the companies forced you to <em>choose</em> between legality and +friendship.</p> + +<p> +A lot of people were upset about this, and most of them copied the +program anyway—very often using lame excuses that were mostly +aimed at calming their own troubled consciousness (induced by the +firms' choice of words). The absolute hit was probably “If I +would use it more often I would pay it,” a phrase that +probably everyone caught himself using if he ever had to rely on +proprietary software.</p> + +<p> +One man found this situation unbearable. Used to the early days, the +(as he says himself) “paradise,” where freedom and +responsible use of the possibilities determined the situation, Richard +Stallman envisioned the concept of a completely free system. Very +quickly it became clear that this system would be Unix-compatible and +it was baptized—recursive acronyms were very popular back +then—GNU, which means “GNU's Not Unix.” +Stallman gathered some people who shared his fascination with a free +system, and founded the GNU Free Software Foundation, of which he is +still the president today.</p> + +<p> +Since first of all a Unix system requires a large set of components, +it became clear that these were the first step towards a +completely free system. The GNU FSF worked on implementing them, and +by the beginning of the 90's the GNU system was complete (with the +exception of the kernel). +The GNU kernel—project name “Hurd”—has an +extremely ambitious layout that proved to be very slow and clumsy in +development. Fortunately, at this point Linus Torvalds' first Linux +kernel was in the test phase, and when he saw the work already done by +the GNU FSF, he put his kernel under the GNU GPL and made it the kernel +of the GNU system.</p> + +<p> +There is no need to tell the rest of the story since most of us have +experienced it themselves.</p> + +<p> +A little earlier I said that Richard Stallman envisioned the concept +of free software. What I didn't tell you about was the philosophy +that stands behind it.</p> + +<p> +The word “free” in “free software” does not refer to price, +but to freedom. This is no unproblematic topic, and +recently some of the visionaries of the movement (like Eric Raymond) +have begun to talk about “open source” because +“freedom” has an uneasy sound to it for most +people. Freedom rings of “making world a better place,” and +insecurity. It rings of change, and change frightens many people. To +numb this fear, other licenses for free software have been invented in +order to make the concept digestible for more people and to avoid +scaring the industry.</p> + +<p> +That is the reason why the GNU Project dislikes the term “open +source.” We think it makes more sense to take away people's +fears of the idea instead of blurring the concept. Only if users and +firms are aware of the importance of freedom can we avoid falling back +into old patterns.</p> + +<p> +The philosophy of the GNU Project says that <em>everyone</em> shall have +the granted right to use a program, to copy it, and to change it to +make it fit his or her needs. The <em>only</em> restriction the GNU +General Public License makes, is that <em>NO ONE</em> has the right to +take away this freedom from anyone else.</p> + +<p> +When an author puts his code under the GNU GPL, the freedom is an +inseparable part of his program. Of course, this is a thorn in the +side of a lot of business'es eyes because it stops them from taking the +code, modifying it, and then selling it as a proprietary program. As +long as there are people who try to live the dream of instant wealth, +it is this freedom that stops firms like Microsoft from corrupting the +future development of our system.</p> + +<p> +The most used argument against the GNU philosophy is probably that +software is the “intellectual property” of the programmer, +and it is only right if he can decide the price for which the program +is distributed. This argument is easy to understand for everyone, since +it is exactly what we have been told to believe during the last 20 +years.</p> + +<p> +Reality is a little different, though. Private programmers who can +live off selling self-written software are the exception. Usually they +give their rights to the firm they work at, and this firm earns the +money by restricting access to that program. Effectively, the +firm has the rights for that program and decides it's price, +not the programmer.</p> + +<p> +A lawyer who invents an especially brilliant strategy has no right to +claim it as his “intellectual property.” The method is +freely available to anyone. Why do we so willingly accept the concept +that every line of code—no matter how poorly written or +uninspired it may be—is so unique and incredibly personal? The +zeal for control has taken over in a way that even human genes are +subject to patents… although usually not by the people who +“use” them. Should really <em>everything</em> be allowed to +be patented and licensed?</p> + +<p> +This is the question that is one of the core thoughts of the GNU +Project. Let us just imagine there would be no such concept as +patented software, or patenting software would be unusual because +everyone published his programs under the GNU GPL.</p> + +<p> +Solutions for standard problems that had to be solved over and over +again can be accessed easily. No one has to waste his time ever again +to work on the same problem dozens of times—programmers could +search for new ways and approach new problems. If a group of users +needs a certain feature in a program, they just hire a programmer and +let him implement it. Freed of the limitations of licenses and money, +only two criteria would determine the development of programs: demand +and quality.</p> + +<p> +Speaking of quality—nowadays more and more firms realize that +allowing the users to access the source code gives them a huge +advantage. To say it in a simple way: more eyes can see +more. Solutions that are unimaginable for one person are painfully +obvious for someone else. Due to this advantage, free software is very +often so much better than its proprietary counterpart. The train of +thought that now appears to be establishing itself within some firms +is to give users access to the source code but not grant any other +rights. Improvements are obediently being sent back to the firm, which +advances its product with them. Basically a gigantic gratis +development division. If we do not pay attention to these +things <em>now</em>, it might happen that in 5 years we will have to pay +for a version that has been produced by applying our own patch.</p> + +<p> +The concept of software as “intellectual property” carries +the seed of doom inside itself (please forgive me for the pathos +here). As long as we accept this concept, we accept the danger that +another firm will attempt to take control. Microsoft is +<em>not</em> evil incarnated, as some people seem to perceive. Microsoft +is <em>the natural consequence</em> of the widely accepted system.</p> + +<p> +The fear of sawing the branch you're sitting on is also commonly +spread, but completely irrational. Better programs lead to more users +that have other needs and new ideas, creating more demand. The +structure will change to fit the new situation but work will increase +rather than decrease, and it will become less routine, hence +more interesting.</p> + +<p> +The last common fear that remains is the fear over lack of +recognition. Well, the respect held for the frontmen of the different +philosophies speaks for itself. I on my part would prefer to be as +respected as Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman than to have the +reputation of Bill Gates.</p> + +<p> +Admittedly, this does sound like bettering the world and idealism, but +a lot of the really great ideas were driven by the wish to make the +world a little better.</p> + +<p> +And to settle one point very clearly: no, the GNU Project is not +against capitalism or firms in general, and it is not against software +firms in particular. We do not want to diminish the potential for +profit, quite the contrary. Every firm is being told to make +as much money as they can off the sale of software, documentation +and service—as long as they stick to the basic principles of +Free Software. +The more these firms earn, the more they can invest into the +development of new software. We do not want to destroy the market, we +just want to fit it to the times.</p> + +<p> +One short note about the basic principles: of course free software +also requires free documentation. It doesn't make any sense to free +the successor of the book—software—while accepting control +of the direct digital equivalent. Free documentation is as important +as free software itself.</p> + +<p> +Maybe someone discarded my statement about seeking to “fit the +market to the times” as a rhetorical statement, but it is an +important point in the GNU Philosophy: +the time when software was only relevant for a few freaks and some +firms is long gone. Nowadays, software is the pathway to information. A +system that blocks the pathways to information, and in doing so the +access to information itself, <em>must</em> be reconsidered.</p> + +<p> +When Eric Raymond published the so called “Halloween +Document,” it triggered emotions from euphoria to paranoia. For +those of you who did not read it: it is a Microsoft internal study in +which the strengths and weaknesses of free software in general, and +Linux in particular, are analyzed. The author basically concluded that +Microsoft has two possibilities to counter the threat.</p> + +<p> +The first is the creation of new or modification of old protocols, +documenting them only poorly or not at all, so that only Windows-based +machines will have a working implementation.</p> + +<p> +One example of this tactic is the protocol used by HP +“Cxi” printers, which have entered the market as extremely +cheap “Windows-Printers.” The specifications have only +been given to Microsoft, so these printers are not usable by any other +system.</p> + +<p> +I have been told by a “professionally trained” computer +salesperson that the “for Windows” sticker means the +printer needs a very special kind of RAM, which only Windows machines +have; this is why it cannot be used under Linux. Something like +this confuses the typical user, which brings me directly to the second +described tactic.</p> + +<p> +These tactics are usually gathered under the acronym “FUD” +(Fear Uncertainty Doubt), and were used by IBM long before Microsoft +uncovered them. The idea is clear: if you make someone uncertain +enough, he or she will not dare make <em>any</em> decision, +effectively remaining in his or her current position. That is the +thought.</p> + +<p> +For all times, education has been the arch-enemy of superstition. +We must not allow education to be hindered by allowing ourselves to +become split.</p> + +<p> +The most recognizable split in the recent history has been the +already noted distinction between “open source” and +“free software.” Telling both concepts apart is not an +easy task, even for most insiders, and it is only understandable if +viewed in a historical context. Since this is a central point, I'd like +to say a few words about it.</p> + +<p> +With the completion of the GNU system with the Linux kernel, there was +suddenly a complete, powerful, free system available. This inevitably +had to raise the public's attention sooner or later.</p> + +<p> +When this attention came, a lot of firms were disconcerted by the word +“free.” The first association was “no money,” +which immediately meant “no profit” for them. When people +then tried to tell them that “free” truly stands for +“freedom,” they were completely shaken.</p> + +<p> +Infected by this insecurity and doubt, the idea arose to avoid words +like “free” and “freedom” at all costs. The +term “open source” was born.</p> + +<p> +Admittedly it is easier to sell the idea if you use the term +“open source” instead of “free +software.” +But the consequence is that the “newbies” have no +knowledge or understanding of the original idea. This splits the +movement, and leads to incredibly unproductive trench wars, which waste a +huge amount of creative energy.</p> + +<p> +A larger interested audience does not mean we should talk less about +the underlying philosophy. Quite the contrary: the more people and +firms do not understand that this freedom is also in their interest, +the more we need to talk about it. The freedom of software offers a +huge potential for all of us—firms and users.</p> + +<p> +The plan is not to remove capitalism or destroy firms. We want to +change the understanding of software for the benefit of all +participants, to fit the needs of the 21th century. This is the core of +the GNU Project.</p> + +<p> +Each of us can do his share—be it in form of a program or +documentation, or just by spreading the word that there is another way +of handling things.</p> + +<p> +It is crucial to explain to the firms that free software is <em>not a +threat</em>, but an opportunity. Of course this doesn't happen +overnight, but when all participants realize the possibilities and +perspectives, all of us will win. So, if you are working in the +software business, make yourself at home with the topic, talk about it +with friends and colleagues. And please refrain from trying to +“missionize” them—I know most of us have this +tendency—the arguments speak for themselves. Give them the time and +peace to think it over, and to befriend themselves with the +concept. Show them that the concept of freedom is nothing to be +feared.</p> + +<p> +I hope I was able to convey the philosophy or at least stimulate +consideration of some new ideas. If you have questions or would like +to discuss some things, I'll be here all night and all questions are +welcome. I wish everyone a very interesting night. Thank you.</p> +</div> + +</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>Please send comments on this speech to Georg Greve +<a href="mailto:greve@gnu.org"><greve@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 © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve</p> + +<p id="Permission">Permission is granted to make and distribute +verbatim copies of this transcript as long as the copyright and this +permission notice appear.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/10/06 09:02:08 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |