summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html740
1 files changed, 740 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..787898f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html
@@ -0,0 +1,740 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>The GNU Manifesto
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/manifesto.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The GNU Manifesto</h2>
+
+<p> The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a> in 1985 to
+ask for support in developing the GNU operating system. Part of the
+text was taken from the original announcement of 1983. Through 1987,
+it was updated in minor ways to account for developments; since then,
+it seems best to leave it unchanged.</p>
+
+<p>Since that time, we have learned about certain common
+misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes
+added since 1993 help clarify these points.</p>
+
+<p>If you want to install the GNU/Linux system, we recommend you use
+one of the <a href="/distros">100% free software GNU/Linux
+distributions</a>. For how to contribute,
+see <a href="/help/help.html">http://www.gnu.org/help</a>.</p>
+
+<p>The GNU Project is part of the Free Software Movement, a campaign
+for <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">freedom for users of
+software</a>. It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo;&mdash;that term was coined in 1998 by people
+who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values. They
+use it to promote an
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">amoral approach</a> to the same field.</p>
+
+<h3 id="whats-gnu">What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!</h3>
+
+<p>
+ GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
+Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give
+it away free to everyone who can use it.<a href="#f1">(1)</a> Several
+other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money,
+programs and equipment are greatly needed.</p>
+
+<p>
+ So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor
+commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator,
+a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is
+nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled
+itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but
+many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and
+compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system
+suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text
+formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free,
+portable X Window System as well. After this we will add a portable
+Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
+things, plus online documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
+everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.</p>
+
+<p>
+ GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
+Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our
+experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to
+have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,
+file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and
+perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several
+Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C
+and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will
+try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for
+communication.</p>
+
+<p>
+ GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with
+virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run
+on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left
+to someone who wants to use it on them.</p>
+
+<p>
+ To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the <em>g</em> in the
+word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; when it is the name of this project.</p>
+
+<h3 id="why-write">Why I Must Write GNU</h3>
+
+<p>
+ I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I
+must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to
+divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share
+with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this
+way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a
+software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities,
+but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an
+institution where such things are done for me against my will.</p>
+
+<p>
+ So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have
+decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I
+will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I
+have resigned from the AI Lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent
+me from giving GNU away.<a href="#f2a">(2)</a></p>
+
+<h3 id="compatible">Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix</h3>
+
+<p>
+ Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential
+features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what
+Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix
+would be convenient for many other people to adopt.</p>
+
+<h3 id="available">How GNU Will Be Available</h3>
+
+<p>
+ GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to
+modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to
+restrict its further redistribution. That is to say,
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all
+versions of GNU remain free.</p>
+
+<h3 id="why-help">Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help</h3>
+
+<p>
+ I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and
+want to help.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
+software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them
+to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel
+as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
+sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used
+essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The
+purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the
+law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But
+those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice.
+They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making
+money.</p>
+
+<p>
+ By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can
+be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as
+an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in
+sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if
+we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I
+talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.</p>
+
+<h3 id="contribute">How You Can Contribute</h3>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+(Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the <a
+href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects">High Priority Projects
+list</a> and the <a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/people/?type_id=1">GNU Help
+Wanted list</a>, the general task list for GNU software packages. For other
+ways to help, see <a href="/help/help.html">the guide to helping
+the GNU operating system</a>.)
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+ I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and
+money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.</p>
+
+<p>
+ One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU
+will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete,
+ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not
+in need of sophisticated cooling or power.</p>
+
+<p>
+ I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time
+work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would
+be very hard to coordinate; the independently written parts would not
+work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this
+problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility
+programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface
+specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor
+can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make
+it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these
+utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy
+to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will
+be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and
+will be worked on by a small, tight group.)</p>
+
+<p>
+ If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full
+or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but
+I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as
+important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated
+people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them
+the need to make a living in another way.</p>
+
+<h3 id="benefit">Why All Computer Users Will Benefit</h3>
+
+<p>
+ Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
+software free, just like air.<a href="#f2">(3)</a></p>
+
+<p>
+ This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix
+license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
+effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the
+state of the art.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result,
+a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
+himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
+him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company
+which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment
+by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.
+Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be
+installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and
+upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very
+much inspired by this.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software
+and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including
+licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through
+the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,
+which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can
+force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must
+be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air
+may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is
+intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the
+TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are
+outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and
+chuck the masks.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
+breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.</p>
+
+<h3 id="rebutted-objections">Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals</h3>
+
+<p id="support">
+<strong>&ldquo;Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means
+they can't rely on any support.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+<strong>&ldquo;You have to charge for the program to pay for providing
+the support.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free
+without service, a company to provide just service to people who have
+obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.<a href="#f3">(4)</a></p>
+
+<p>
+ We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming
+work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on
+from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough
+people, the vendor will tell you to get lost.</p>
+
+<p>
+ If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way
+is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any
+available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any
+individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of
+consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is
+still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this
+problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not
+eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need
+handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do
+themselves but don't know how.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Such services could be provided by companies that sell just
+handholding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather
+spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing
+to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies
+will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any
+particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service
+should be able to use the program without paying for the service.</p>
+
+<p id="advertising">
+<strong>&ldquo;You cannot reach many people without advertising, and
+you must charge for the program to support that.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+<strong>&ldquo;It's no use advertising a program people can get
+free.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be
+used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But
+it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with
+advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the
+service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful
+enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users
+who benefit from the advertising pay for it.</p>
+
+<p>
+ On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and
+such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not
+really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates
+don't want to let the free market decide this?<a href="#f4">(5)</a></p>
+
+<p id="competitive">
+<strong>&ldquo;My company needs a proprietary operating system to get
+a competitive edge.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of
+competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but
+neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and
+they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this
+one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not
+like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else,
+GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of
+selling operating systems.</p>
+
+<p>
+ I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
+manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.<a href="#f5">(6)</a></p>
+
+<p id="deserve">
+<strong>&ldquo;Don't programmers deserve a reward for their
+creativity?&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution.
+Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society
+is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for
+creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be
+punished if they restrict the use of these programs.</p>
+
+<p id="reward">
+<strong>&ldquo;Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for
+his creativity?&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
+maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
+destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today
+are based on destruction.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of
+it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the
+ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth
+that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate
+choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to
+become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become
+poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or,
+the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if
+everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one
+to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity
+does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that
+creativity.</p>
+
+<p id="starve">
+<strong>&ldquo;Won't programmers starve?&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
+cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
+faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
+standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something
+else.</p>
+
+<p>
+ But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's
+implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers
+cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
+possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
+now.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.
+It is the most common basis<a href="#f8">(7)</a> because it brings in
+the most money. If it
+were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would
+move to other bases of organization which are now used less often.
+There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
+is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not
+considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
+now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice
+either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than
+that.)</p>
+
+<p id="right-to-control">
+<strong>&ldquo;Don't people have a right to control how their
+creativity is used?&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+&ldquo;Control over the use of one's ideas&rdquo; really constitutes
+control over other people's lives; and it is usually used to make
+their lives more difficult.</p>
+
+<p>
+ People who have studied the issue of intellectual property
+rights<a href="#f6">(8)</a> carefully (such as lawyers) say that there
+is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds of supposed
+intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were
+created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.</p>
+
+<p>
+ For example, the patent system was established to encourage
+inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was
+to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life
+span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of
+advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among
+manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are
+small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do
+much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented
+products.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
+frequently copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. This
+practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have
+survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for
+the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was
+invented&mdash;books, which could be copied economically only on a printing
+press&mdash;it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals
+who read the books.</p>
+
+<p>
+ All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
+because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole
+would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we
+have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind
+of act are we licensing a person to do?</p>
+
+<p>
+ The case of programs today is very different from that of books a
+hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is
+from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source
+code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is
+used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in
+which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole
+both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so
+regardless of whether the law enables him to.</p>
+
+<p id="competition">
+<strong>&ldquo;Competition makes things get done
+better.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
+encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this
+way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it
+always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered
+and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other
+strategies&mdash;such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into
+a fist fight, they will all finish late.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners
+in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem
+to object to fights; he just regulates them (&ldquo;For every ten
+yards you run, you can fire one shot&rdquo;). He really ought to
+break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight.</p>
+
+<p id="stop-programming">
+<strong>&ldquo;Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary
+incentive?&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary
+incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some
+people, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of
+professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of
+making a living that way.</p>
+
+<p>
+ But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate
+to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become
+less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced
+monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will.</p>
+
+<p>
+ For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked
+at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could
+have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of nonmonetary rewards:
+fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a
+reward in itself.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same
+interesting work for a lot of money.</p>
+
+<p>
+ What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other
+than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they
+will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly
+in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly
+if the high-paying ones are banned.</p>
+
+<p id="desperate">
+<strong>&ldquo;We need the programmers desperately. If they demand
+that we stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
+Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!</p>
+
+<p id="living">
+<strong>&ldquo;Programmers need to make a living somehow.&rdquo;</strong></p>
+
+<p>
+ In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways
+that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a
+program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and
+businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a
+living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here
+are a number of examples.</p>
+
+<p>
+ A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
+operating systems onto the new hardware.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The sale of teaching, handholding and maintenance services could
+also employ programmers.</p>
+
+<p>
+ People with new ideas could distribute programs as
+freeware<a href="#f7">(9)</a>, asking for donations from satisfied
+users, or selling handholding services. I have met people who are
+already working this way successfully.</p>
+
+<p>
+ Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A
+group would contract with programming companies to write programs that
+the group's members would like to use.</p>
+
+<p>
+ All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:</p>
+
+<p>
+ Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the
+ price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency
+ like the NSF to spend on software development.</p>
+
+<p>
+ But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
+ himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to
+ the project of his own choosing&mdash;often, chosen because he hopes to
+ use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any
+ amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the
+ tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.</p>
+
+<p>
+ The consequences:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>The computer-using community supports software development.</li>
+<li>This community decides what level of support is needed.</li>
+<li>Users who care which projects their share is spent on can
+ choose this for themselves.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>
+ In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the
+postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to
+make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities
+that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten
+hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling,
+robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be
+able to make a living from programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+ We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
+society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
+has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
+nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
+The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against
+competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the
+area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical
+gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.</p>
+
+
+<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
+
+<!-- The anchors do not match the actual footnote numbers because of
+ revisions over time. And if a new footnote is added, the references
+ to existing footnotes that follow the new one must be changed. -->
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">The wording here was careless. The intention
+was that nobody would have to pay for <b>permission</b> to use the GNU
+system. But the words don't make this clear, and people often
+interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be
+distributed at little or no charge. That was never the intent; later
+on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of companies providing the
+service of distribution for a profit. Subsequently I have learned to
+distinguish carefully between &ldquo;free&rdquo; in the sense of
+freedom and &ldquo;free&rdquo; in the sense of price. Free software
+is software that users have the freedom to distribute and change.
+Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain
+copies&mdash;and if the funds help support improving the software, so much
+the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy has
+the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.</li>
+
+<li id="f2a">The expression &ldquo;give away&rdquo; is another
+indication that I had not yet clearly separated the issue of price
+from that of freedom. We now recommend avoiding this expression when
+talking about free software. See
+&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware">Confusing
+Words and Phrases</a>&rdquo; for more explanation.</li>
+
+<li id="f2">This is another place I failed to distinguish
+carefully between the two different meanings of &ldquo;free&rdquo;.
+The statement as it stands is not false&mdash;you can get copies of GNU
+software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does
+suggest the wrong idea.</li>
+
+<li id="f3">Several such companies now exist.</li>
+
+<li id="f4">Although it is a
+charity rather than a company, the Free Software Foundation for 10 years raised
+most of its funds from its distribution service. You
+can <a href="/order/order.html">order things from the FSF</a>
+to support its work.
+</li>
+
+<li id="f5">A group of computer companies pooled funds
+around 1991 to support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.</li>
+
+<li id="f8">I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary
+software was the most common basis for making money in software.
+It seems that actually the most common business model was and is
+development of custom software. That does not offer the possibility
+of collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing real work
+in order to keep getting income. The custom software business would
+continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world.
+Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid programmers would earn less
+in a free software world.</li>
+
+<li id="f6">In the 1980s I had not yet realized how confusing
+it was to speak of &ldquo;the issue&rdquo; of &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo;. That term is obviously biased; more subtle is the
+fact that it lumps together various disparate laws which raise very
+different issues. Nowadays I urge people to reject the term
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; entirely, lest it lead others to
+suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be clear
+is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately.
+See <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">further explanation</a> of how
+this term spreads confusion and bias.</li>
+
+<li id="f7">Subsequently we learned to distinguish
+between &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;freeware&rdquo;. The
+term &ldquo;freeware&rdquo; means software you are free to
+redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and change the
+source code, so most of it is not free software. See
+&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Freeware">Confusing
+Words and Phrases</a>&rdquo; for more explanation.</li>
+
+</ol>
+
+</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; 1985, 1993, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>
+Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
+of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
+permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
+recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this
+notice.
+<br />
+Modified versions may not be made.
+</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/06/02 12:55:15 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>