summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html437
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">&lt;greve@gnu.org&gt;</a></address>
+
+<p><em>Translation of a speech that was given in German
+at the CLOWN (Cluster of Working Nodes&mdash;
+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&hellip;
+</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 &ldquo;software piracy&rdquo;
+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&mdash;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 &ldquo;If I
+would use it more often I would pay it,&rdquo; 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) &ldquo;paradise,&rdquo; 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&mdash;recursive acronyms were very popular back
+then&mdash;GNU, which means &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix.&rdquo;
+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&mdash;project name &ldquo;Hurd&rdquo;&mdash;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 &ldquo;free&rdquo; in &ldquo;free software&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; because
+&ldquo;freedom&rdquo; has an uneasy sound to it for most
+people. Freedom rings of &ldquo;making world a better place,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;open
+source.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;intellectual property.&rdquo; The method is
+freely available to anyone. Why do we so willingly accept the concept
+that every line of code&mdash;no matter how poorly written or
+uninspired it may be&mdash;is so unique and incredibly personal? The
+zeal for control has taken over in a way that even human genes are
+subject to patents&hellip; although usually not by the people who
+&ldquo;use&rdquo; 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&mdash;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&mdash;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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; 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&mdash;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&mdash;software&mdash;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 &ldquo;fit the
+market to the times&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;Halloween
+Document,&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;Cxi&rdquo; printers, which have entered the market as extremely
+cheap &ldquo;Windows-Printers.&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;professionally trained&rdquo; computer
+salesperson that the &ldquo;for Windows&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;FUD&rdquo;
+(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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;free software.&rdquo; 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
+&ldquo;free.&rdquo; The first association was &ldquo;no money,&rdquo;
+which immediately meant &ldquo;no profit&rdquo; for them. When people
+then tried to tell them that &ldquo;free&rdquo; truly stands for
+&ldquo;freedom,&rdquo; they were completely shaken.</p>
+
+<p>
+Infected by this insecurity and doubt, the idea arose to avoid words
+like &ldquo;free&rdquo; and &ldquo;freedom&rdquo; at all costs. The
+term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; was born.</p>
+
+<p>
+Admittedly it is easier to sell the idea if you use the term
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;free
+software.&rdquo;
+But the consequence is that the &ldquo;newbies&rdquo; 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&mdash;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&mdash;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
+&ldquo;missionize&rdquo; them&mdash;I know most of us have this
+tendency&mdash;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 &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>Please send comments on this speech to Georg Greve
+<a href="mailto:greve@gnu.org">&lt;greve@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; 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>