diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 277 |
1 files changed, 277 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..256ac77 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html @@ -0,0 +1,277 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>Linux, GNU, and freedom +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<meta http-equiv="Keywords" + content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, freedom, software, power, rights, Richard Stallman, rms, SIGLINUX, Joe Barr" /> +<meta http-equiv="Description" content="In this essay, Linux, GNU, and freedom, Richard M. Stallman responds to Joe Barr's account of the FSF's dealings with the Austin Linux users group." /> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/linux-gnu-freedom.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Linux, GNU, and freedom</h2> + +<p> + by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong></p> + +<p> + Since <a + href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190404115541/http://linux.sys-con.com/node/32755">Joe Barr's + article</a> criticized my dealings with SIGLINUX, I would like to + set the record straight about what actually occurred, and state my + reasons.</p> +<p> + When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, it was a “Linux User + Group”; that is, a group for users of the GNU/Linux system + which calls the whole system “Linux”. So I replied + politely that if they'd like someone from the GNU Project to give a + speech for them, they ought to treat the GNU Project right, and call + the system “GNU/Linux”. The system is a variant of GNU, + and the GNU Project is its principal developer, so social convention + says to call it by the name we chose. Unless there are powerful + reasons for an exception, I usually decline to give speeches for + organizations that won't give GNU proper credit in this way. I + respect their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom not to + give a speech.</p> +<p> + Subsequently, Jeff Strunk of SIGLINUX tried to change the group's + policy, and asked the FSF to list his group in our page of GNU/Linux + user groups. Our webmaster told him that we would not list it under + the name “SIGLINUX” because that name implies that the + group is about Linux. Strunk proposed to change the name to + “SIGFREE”, and our webmaster agreed that would be fine. + (Barr's article said we rejected this proposal.) However, the group + ultimately decided to stay with “SIGLINUX”.</p> +<p> + At that point, the matter came to my attention again, and I + suggested they consider other possible names. There are many names + they could choose that would not call the system + “Linux”, and I hope they will come up with one they + like. There the matter rests as far as I know.</p> +<p> + Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an + “application of force” comparable with Microsoft's + monopoly power? Probably so. Declining an invitation is not + coercion, but people who are determined to believe that the entire + system is “Linux” sometimes develop amazingly distorted + vision. To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills + as mountains and mountains as molehills. If you can ignore the + facts and believe that Linus Torvalds developed the whole system + starting in 1991, or if you can ignore your ordinary principles of + fairness and believe that Torvalds should get the sole credit even + though he didn't do that, it's a small step to believe that I owe + you a speech when you ask.</p> +<p> + Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating + system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. + The GNU Project says, “Please give our project equal + mention,” but Linus says, “Don't give them a share of + the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!” Now + envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and + accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to + misjudge so drastically.</p> +<p> + A person who is that prejudiced can say all sorts of unfair things + about the GNU Project and think them justified; his fellows will + support him, because they want each other's support in maintaining + their prejudice. Dissenters can be reviled; thus, if I decline to + participate in an activity under the rubric of “Linux”, + they may find that inexcusable, and hold me responsible for the ill + will they feel afterwards. When so many people want me to call the + system “Linux”, how can I, who merely launched its + development, not comply? And forcibly denying them a speech is + forcibly making them unhappy. That's coercion, as bad as + Microsoft!</p> +<p> + Now, you might wonder why I don't just duck the issue and avoid all + this grief. When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, I could simply have + said “No, sorry” and the matter would have ended there. + Why didn't I do that? I'm willing to take the risk of being abused + personally in order to have a chance of correcting the error that + undercuts the GNU Project's efforts.</p> +<p> + Calling this variant of the GNU system “Linux” plays + into the hands of people who choose their software based only on + technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom. + There are people like Barr, that want their software “free + from ideology” and criticize anyone that says freedom matters. + There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into + use of a non-free program, and challenge anyone who complains to + provide a (technically) better program immediately or shut up. + There are people who say that technical decisions should not be + “politicized” by consideration of their social + consequences.</p> +<p> + In the 70s, computer users lost the freedoms to redistribute and + change software because they didn't value their freedom. Computer + users regained these freedoms in the 80s and 90s because a group of + idealists, the GNU Project, believed that freedom is what makes a + program better, and were willing to work for what we believed in.</p> +<p> + We have partial freedom today, but our freedom is not secure. It is + threatened by the <abbr title="Consumer Broadband and Digital + Television Promotion Act">CBDTPA</abbr> + (formerly <abbr title="Security Systems Standards and Certification Act">SSSCA</abbr>), + by the Broadcast “Protection” Discussion Group + (see <a href="http://www.eff.org/">http://www.eff.org/</a>) which + proposes to prohibit free software to access digital TV broadcasts, + by software patents (Europe is now considering whether to have + software patents), by Microsoft nondisclosure agreements for vital + protocols, and by everyone who tempts us with a non-free program + that is “better” (technically) than available free + programs. We can lose our freedom again just as we lost it the + first time, if we don't care enough to protect it.</p> +<p> + Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, + how much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus + Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, “Value your + freedom!”. Joe Barr says, “Choose between non-free and + free programs on technical grounds alone!”. If people credit + Torvalds as the main developer of the GNU/Linux system, that's not + just inaccurate, it also makes his message more + influential—and that message says, “Non-free software is + ok; I use it and develop it myself.” If they recognize our + role, they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them + is, “This system exists because of people who care about + freedom. Join us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve + it.” + See <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html</a> + for the history.</p> +<p> + When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond + with <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"> silly excuses and straw men</a>. + But we probably haven't lost + anything, because they were probably unfriendly to begin with. + Meanwhile, other people recognize the reasons I give, and use that + name. By doing so, they help make other people aware of why the + GNU/Linux system really exists, and that increases our ability to + spread the idea that freedom is an important value.</p> +<p> + This is why I keep butting my head against bias, calumny, and grief. + They hurt my feelings, but when successful, this effort helps the GNU + Project campaign for freedom.</p> +<p> + Since this came up in the context of Linux (the kernel) and Bitkeeper, + the non-free version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd + like to address that issue as well.</p> + +<h3 id="bitkeeper">Bitkeeper issue</h3> +<p> + (See the <a href="#update">update</a> below.)</p> +<p> + The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the + free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track + patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program. + There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done + this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok + to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive + dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What + can be done about this?</p> +<p> + One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources, + using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to + load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to + access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS. + That update process could run automatically and frequently.</p> +<p> + The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our + machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, + and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this + repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to + have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way + to do it using free software.</p> +<p> + The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with + non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device + drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to + be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A + few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a + substantial program in binary is another.</p> +<p> + The presence of these binary-only programs in “source” + files of Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question + whether Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL + requires “complete corresponding source code,” and a + sequence of integers is not the source code. By the same token, + adding such a binary to the Linux sources violates the GPL.</p> +<p> + The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs + into separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when + completed it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a + “free Linux” version that doesn't have the non-free + firmware files. That by itself won't do much good if most people + use the non-free “official” version of Linux. That may + well occur, because on many platforms the free version won't run + without the non-free firmware. The “free Linux” project + will have to figure out what the firmware does and write source code + for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever embedded + processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less + daunting if we had done it little by little over the years, rather + than letting it mount up. In recruiting people to do this job, we + will have to overcome the idea, spread by some Linux developers, + that the job is not necessary.</p> +<p> + Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free + software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did + this happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, + reflects the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person + who thinks that “technically better” is more important + than freedom.</p> +<p> + Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. + “Don't bother us with politics,” respond those who don't + want to learn.</p> + +<p id="update"> + <strong>Update:</strong> Since 2005, BitKeeper + is no longer used to manage the Linux kernel source tree. See the + article, <a href="/philosophy/mcvoy.html">Thank You, Larry + McVoy</a>. The Linux sources still contain non-free firmware blobs, + but as of January 2008, + a <a href="//directory.fsf.org/project/linux"> free version of + Linux</a> is now maintained for use in free GNU/Linux + distributions.</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> + +<p>Copyright © 2002, 2017, 2019 Richard M. 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: 2019/12/30 11:28:30 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |