diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html | 224 |
1 files changed, 224 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9be2e9e --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/pragmatic.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism</h2> + +<p> +by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<p> +Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and +goals. People can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, +love, survival, fun, and freedom, are just some of the goals that a +good person might have. When the goal is a matter of principle, we +call that idealism.</p> + +<p> +My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading +freedom and cooperation. I want +to <a href="/philosophy/why-copyleft.html">encourage free software to +spread</a>, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, +and thus make our society better.</p> +<p> +That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written +the way it is—as a <a href="/copyleft"> copyleft</a>. +All code added to a GPL-covered program +must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make +my code available for use in free software, and not for use in +proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write +software to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary +software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we +cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage +of their own: they can use our code.</p> +<p> +Not everyone who uses the GNU GPL has this goal. Many years ago, a +friend of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under +noncopyleft terms, and he responded more or less like this:</p> +<blockquote><p> +“Sometimes I work on free software, and +sometimes I work on proprietary software—but when I work on +proprietary software, I expect to get <em>paid</em>.” +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +He was willing to share his work with a community that shares +software, but saw no reason to give a handout to a business making +products that would be off-limits to our community. His goal was +different from mine, but he decided that the GNU GPL was useful for +his goal too.</p> +<p> +If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not +enough—you need to choose a method that works to achieve the +goal. In other words, you need to be “pragmatic.” Is the +GPL pragmatic? Let's look at its results.</p> +<p> +Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because +the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an +industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC +normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the +C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the +only way they could release it. The C++ front end included many new +files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL +did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident.</p> +<p> +Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front +end proprietary; they proposed to release it as <samp>.o</samp> files, +and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a +way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this +would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so +they made the Objective C front end free software.</p> +<p> +Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues +to bring us more free software.</p> +<p> +Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public +License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the +ordinary GNU GPL is Readline, which implements command-line editing. +I once found out about a nonfree program which was designed +to use Readline, and told the developer this was not allowed. He +could have taken command-line editing out of the program, but what he +actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is free software.</p> +<p> +The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, or +Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or +universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to +the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, +“Hold on there—your code belongs to us! We don't want to +share it; we have decided to turn your improved version into a +proprietary software product.”</p> +<p> +Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss +that this proprietary software product would be copyright +infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: +release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost always +he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the code goes +into the next release.</p> +<p> +The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says no to some of +the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say +that this is a bad thing—that the GPL “excludes” +some proprietary software developers who “need to be brought +into the free software community.”</p> +<p> +But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing +not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a +decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means +joining in cooperation with us; we cannot “bring them into our +community” if they don't want to join.</p> +<p> +What we <em>can</em> do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU +GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: +“If you will make your software free, you can use this +code.” Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins some of the +time.</p> +<p> +Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, +but its developers often want handouts from us. Free software users +can offer free software developers strokes for the +ego—recognition and gratitude—but it can be very tempting +when a business tells you, “Just let us put your package in our +proprietary program, and your program will be used by many thousands +of people!” The temptation can be powerful, but in the long run +we are all better off if we resist it.</p> +<p> +The temptation and pressure are harder to recognize when they come +indirectly, through free software organizations that have adopted a +policy of catering to proprietary software. The X Consortium (and its +successor, the Open Group) offers an example: funded by companies that +made proprietary software, they strived for a decade to persuade +programmers not to use copyleft. When the Open Group tried to +<a href="/philosophy/x.html">make X11R6.4 nonfree software</a>, those +of us who had resisted that pressure were glad that we did.</p> +<p> +In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with +nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and +rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that +was used for X11R6.3. Thank you, Open Group—but this subsequent +reversal does not invalidate the conclusions we draw from the fact +that adding the restrictions was <em>possible</em>.</p> +<p> +Pragmatically speaking, thinking about greater long-term goals will +strengthen your will to resist this pressure. If you focus your mind +on the freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you +will find the strength to do it. “Stand for something, or you +will fall for anything.”</p> +<p> +And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community…if +“hard-nosed realists” say that profit is the only +ideal…just ignore them, and use copyleft all the same.</p> + +<hr /> +<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published +in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote> + +</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> + +<!-- 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 3.0 US. 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, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:35 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |