diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 98 |
1 files changed, 62 insertions, 36 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html index 256ac77..98226a4 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html @@ -1,16 +1,22 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> -<title>Linux, GNU, and freedom +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<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> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> +<h2>Linux, GNU, and Freedom</h2> -<p> - by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong></p> +<address class="byline">by Richard M. Stallman</address> <p> Since <a @@ -21,10 +27,10 @@ <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 + 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, + 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 @@ -37,14 +43,14 @@ 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. + “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> + 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 + “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 @@ -73,10 +79,10 @@ 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”, + 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 + 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> @@ -94,7 +100,7 @@ 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 + use of a nonfree 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 @@ -111,11 +117,11 @@ 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 + (see <a href="https://www.eff.org/">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 + protocols, and by everyone who tempts us with a nonfree 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> @@ -123,17 +129,17 @@ 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 + freedom!” Joe Barr says, “Choose between nonfree 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 + influential—and that message says, “Nonfree 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> + See <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">The GNU Project</a> for the history.</p> <p> When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond @@ -150,7 +156,7 @@ 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 + the nonfree version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd like to address that issue as well.</p> <h3 id="bitkeeper">Bitkeeper issue</h3> @@ -159,10 +165,10 @@ <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. + patches to Linux can only do it by installing that nonfree 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 + to use nonfree 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> @@ -173,14 +179,14 @@ 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, + machines. We have no nonfree 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 + nonfree 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 @@ -196,11 +202,11 @@ 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 + “free Linux” version that doesn't have the nonfree firmware files. That by itself won't do much good if most people - use the non-free “official” version of Linux. That may + use the nonfree “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 + without the nonfree 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 @@ -210,7 +216,7 @@ 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 + software, yet its current version is partially nonfree. 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 @@ -219,19 +225,22 @@ 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> +<div class="column-limit"></div> <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, + McVoy</a>. The Linux sources still contain nonfree 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> + </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> -<div id="footer"> +<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> <div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a @@ -249,16 +258,33 @@ href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> - <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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> +information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> -<p>Copyright © 2002, 2017, 2019 Richard M. Stallman</p> +<!-- 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 © 2002, 2021 Richard M. Stallman</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative @@ -268,10 +294,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2019/12/30 11:28:30 $ +$Date: 2021/10/18 16:50:30 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> -</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> </body> </html> |