summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html191
1 files changed, 191 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8912d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a></p>
+
+<p>Free software means software controlled by its users, rather than the
+reverse. Specifically, it means the software comes with <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">four essential freedoms
+that software users deserve</a>. At the head of the list is freedom 0,
+the freedom to run the program as you wish, in order to do what you wish.</p>
+
+<p>Some developers propose to place usage restrictions in software
+licenses to ban using the program for certain purposes, but that would
+be a disastrous path. This article explains why freedom 0 must not
+be limited. Conditions to limit the use of a program would achieve
+little of their aims, but could wreck the free software community.</p>
+
+<p>First of all, let's be clear what freedom 0 means. It means that
+the distribution of the software does not restrict how you use it.
+This doesn't make you exempt from laws. For instance, fraud is a
+crime in the US&mdash;a law which I think is right and proper.
+Whatever the free software license says, using a free program to carry
+out your fraud won't shield you from prosecution.</p>
+
+<p>A license condition against fraud would be superfluous in a country
+where fraud is a crime. But why not a condition against using it for
+torture, a practice that states frequently condone when carried out by
+the &ldquo;security forces&rdquo;?</p>
+
+<p>A condition against torture would not work, because enforcement of any
+free software license is done through the state. A state that wants
+to carry out torture will ignore the license. When victims of US
+torture try suing the US government, courts dismiss the cases on the
+grounds that their treatment is a national security secret. If a
+software developer tried to sue the US government for using a program
+for torture against the conditions of its license, that suit would be
+dismissed too. In general, states are clever at making legal excuses
+for whatever terrible things they want to do. Businesses with powerful
+lobbies can do it too.</p>
+
+<p>What if the condition were against some specialized private activity?
+For instance, PETA proposed a license that would forbid use of the
+software to cause pain to animals with a spinal column. Or there
+might be a condition against using a certain program to make or
+publish drawings of Mohammad. Or against its use in experiments with
+embryonic stem cells. Or against using it to make unauthorized copies
+of musical recordings.</p>
+
+<p>It is not clear these would be enforcible. Free software licenses are
+based on copyright law, and trying to impose usage conditions that way
+is stretching what copyright law permits, stretching it in a dangerous
+way. Would you like books to carry license conditions about how you
+can use the information in them?</p>
+
+<p>What if such conditions are legally enforcible&mdash;would that be good?</p>
+
+<p>The fact is, people have very different ethical ideas about the
+activities that might be done using software. I happen to think those
+four unusual activities are legitimate and should not be forbidden.
+In particular I support the use of software for medical experiments on
+animals, and for processing meat. I defend the human rights of animal
+right activists but I don't agree with them; I would not want PETA to
+get its way in restricting the use of software.</p>
+
+<p>Since I am not a pacifist, I would also disagree with a &ldquo;no military
+use&rdquo; provision. I condemn wars of aggression but I don't condemn
+fighting back. In fact, I have supported efforts to convince various
+armies to switch to free software, since they can check it for back
+doors and surveillance features that could imperil national security.</p>
+
+<p>Since I am not against business in general, I would oppose a
+restriction against commercial use. A system that we could use only
+for recreation, hobbies and school is off limits to much of what we do
+with computers.</p>
+
+<p>I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about
+activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and
+that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage
+restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people
+would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would
+be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only
+for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to
+kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program
+allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a
+Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music
+programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for
+classical music.</p>
+
+<p>The result would be a system that you could not count on for any
+purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of
+licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that
+task.</p>
+
+<p>How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use
+proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in
+free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software.
+Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions
+in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a
+long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software
+developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine
+selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that
+would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for
+general software. If you make something that is generally useful,
+like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even
+horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must
+not have the power to control people's activities through their pens.
+It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.</p>
+
+<p>You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used
+for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write
+programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive,
+and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend
+themselves to activities you disapprove of.</p>
+
+<p>The conclusion is clear: a program must not restrict what jobs its
+users do with it. Freedom 0 must be complete. We need to stop
+torture, but we can't do it through software licenses. The proper job
+of software licenses is to establish and protect users' freedom.</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 &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; 2012, 2015, 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</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: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>