diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html | 576 |
1 files changed, 576 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4f021ae --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html @@ -0,0 +1,576 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>The Future of Jiyuna Software +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rieti.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>The Future of Jiyuna Software</h2> + +<p>Keynote Speech +by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard +Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<pre> + + (Transcript) + +Date: 21 April 2003 +Venue: Seminar Room, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry +(RIETI), (Annex 11th Floor, 1121 Ministry of Economy, Trade and +Industry (METI)) +</pre> +<p> +Mr. Richard Stallman, GNU Project: I am going to speak about free +software and, first of all, its ethical, social and political +significance, and secondly, something about its economic consequences. +</p> +<p> +Free software is a matter of freedom. The English word +“free” does not make this clear because it has two +meanings. In your language, fortunately, you have two different +words. So, if you say jiyu na sofuto, it is very clear that you are +not talking about the price, you are talking about freedom. So, I urge +you, always use your unambiguous word and not our unclear word when +you are talking about free software in Japanese. +</p> +<p> +The reason for having free software is very simple: to live in freedom +and, in particular, to be free to treat other people +decently. Nonfree software says that you are helpless and divided. It +says you cannot even tell what the program does; you are supposed to +take the developer's word for it; and often they will not tell you +what it really does. And if you do not like it, you cannot change +it. Even if the developer made his best sincere effort to make the +program useful, nobody is perfect. I could write a program, and you +might find it halfway good for what you want. Perhaps I wrote it for +somewhat different purposes, not the same as your purposes. Nobody can +anticipate everything. Perhaps I did it the way I thought was best, +but you have a better idea. Nobody can always get everything right. +</p> +<p> +With nonfree software you are stuck. You have to take it the way it +is. You have to suffer with it. And most important with nonfree +software, you are forbidden to share with other people. Society +depends on people helping each other. It is useful to live with +neighbors who will help you when you ask for help. Of course, not +always, nobody is forced to help another person, but if you are +friends with people, often they will help you out. So, of course, we +had better help other people if we want them to help us. +</p> +<p> +So what is it like when someone says you are prohibited from helping +someone else? Here is this useful knowledge, and you could help your +neighbor by sharing it, but you are forbidden to share with other +people. This is attacking the bonds of society, dissolving society +into isolated individuals who cannot help each other. +</p> +<p> +Free software is the contrast to this. Free software means that you +have four essential freedoms. Freedom zero is the freedom to run the +program for any purpose, in any way that you want to. Freedom one is +the freedom to help yourself by studying the source code to see what +the program does and then changing it to suit your needs. Freedom two +is the freedom to help you neighbor by distributing copies to +others. And freedom three is the freedom to help build your community +by publishing an improved version so others can use your version +instead, so others can get the benefit of your help. With these +freedoms, the users control the software they use. If these freedoms +are lacking, then the [software] owner controls the software and +controls the users. +</p> +<p> +We all know that computers do not make decisions themselves +really. They do what people told them to do. But which people told +them what to do? When you are using your computer, can you tell it +what to do, or is someone else telling it what to do? Who controls +your computer? This is the question of free software. The freedoms in +the definition of free software, freedoms zero, one, two and three, +the reason why these are the freedoms that matter is because these are +the freedoms necessary for citizens to control their own +computers. You need freedom zero in order to be able to do whatever +job you want with your computer. You need freedom one so that you can +make the software do what you want it to do. If you do not have +freedom one, you are stuck; you are a prisoner of your software. +</p> +<p> +But not everybody is a programmer. If we had just freedom one, then +programmers could change the software to do what they want. But if +each programmer had to make his changes personally, we would not +really have much control. We would be limited to what each of us, +individually, could do. Non-programmers would get no benefit at +all. That is why freedom three and two are crucial, because freedoms +two and three allow a group of users to work together and make the +software do what they jointly want. So you are not limited to changing +it individually, personally. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>You and 50 other people who want the same +thing, you can get together. If two or three of you are programmers, +they can make the changes, and then they can distribute it to all the +rest of you. You could all put money in and pay a programmer to make +the changes you want. Your company could pay a programmer to make the +changes your company wants. Then if you publish the improved version, +everybody can use it. Thus, all of society gets control over what its +software does. +</p> +<p> +Free software is a method, a democratic method, for deciding the +development of software. But it is democratic in an unusual way, +because we do not hold an election and then tell everybody what to +do. Nobody tells people what to do in the free software community; +everybody makes his own decision. But what happens is this: If many +people want the software to improve in that direction, many people +will work on changing it, so the software will develop rapidly in that +direction. If a few people want the software to develop in that +direction, a few of them will make an effort, so it will develop +slowly in that direction. If nobody wants it to develop in that +direction, it will not. By each of us deciding what we are going to +do, we all contribute to what happens and to deciding which direction +the software will develop. +</p> +<p> +So society collectively has control over how the software will develop +overall. But you, individually, or any group or company can decide how +to develop it themselves. The result is that free software tends to do +what users want, instead of what the developers want. +</p> +<p> +People often ask, “If everybody is free to change the software, +what does that do for compatibility?” Well the fact is, users +like compatibility. It is not the only thing they like. Sometimes, +certain users want an incompatible change because it has other +benefits, and if so they can do it. But most users want +compatibility. The result is most free software developers try very +hard to be compatible. Guess what would happen if I made an +incompatible difference in my program and the users did not like +it. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Some user would change the program and make it compatible, and +then most users would prefer his version. So his version would become +popular and mine would be forgotten. Now, I do not want that to +happen, of course. I want people to like and use my version, so I am +going to recognize this in advance and I am going to make my version +compatible from the beginning because I want people to like it. So in +our community, the developers cannot resist what the users want. We +have to go along or the users will go where they want and leave us +behind. +</p> +<p> +But if you look at nonfree software developers, the ones who are very +powerful, they can impose incompatibility and they are so powerful +that the users cannot do anything. Microsoft is famous for this. They +make an incompatible change in a protocol, and then the users are +stuck with it. But it is not just Microsoft. Consider WAP, for +instance. WAP contains modified versions of ordinary Internet +protocols, modified to be incompatible, and the idea was they would +make these telephones and they would say “they can talk on the +Internet”, but since they did not use the ordinary Internet +protocols, the incompatibility would be imposed on the user. That was +their plan. It did not work, fortunately. But that is the danger you +face when the users are not really in control: Somebody will try to +impose incompatibility on the users. +</p> +<p> +Free software is primarily a political, ethical and social issue. I +have explained that level of it. It also has economic +consequences. For instance, nonfree software can be used to create +very rich companies, where a few people collect money from everyone +around the world, and those few get very rich and other people are +deprived. There are many countries (Japan is not one of them, I guess) +where the people who can afford a computer usually cannot afford to +pay for the nonfree software, for permission to use the nonfree +software. So in those countries, nonfree software as a system creates +tremendous deprivation. But in any country, money is squeezed out of +most people and concentrated to a few who become very rich by nonfree +software. With free software, you cannot do that. You cannot squeeze a +lot of money out of people, but you can do business with people as +long as you are providing them with a real service. +</p> +<p> +Free software business already exists. In fact, I started a free +software business in 1985. I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. I was +looking for a way to make money through free software. So I said, +“Pay me $150, and I will mail you a tape with the GNU Emacs text +editor.” People started paying me, and I mailed them tapes. I +made enough money to live on. I stopped this because I started the +Free Software Foundation, and it seemed appropriate for the Free +Software Foundation to start distributing GNU Emacs. I did not want to +compete with the Free Software Foundation, so I had to find a +different way. For several years, the Foundation made enough money +this way to pay several employees, including programmers. So actually, +if I had done it myself, I would probably have become comfortably well +off by selling copies of free software. +</p> +<p> +After that, I started another free software business where I would +make changes on commission. +</p> +<p> +With nonfree software, you cannot change it. You are a prisoner of +the software. So you either use it exactly as it is or you do not use +it at all. With free software, you have those two choices, but you +have another choice also, actually many different choices. You can +make changes, bigger or smaller, in the program and use the modified +program. +</p> +<p> +Now, if you are personally a programmer, you could make the changes +yourself. But suppose you are not a programmer. Then, you can pay a +programmer to make the changes for you. For instance, if this ministry +is using a program and people conclude this program does not work the +way we really want, you could easily spend some money to pay a +programmer to change it to do what you want. This is the kind of free +software business that I was doing for several years in the 1980s. (I +could have kept on doing it, but I received a big prize and I did not +have to do it anymore.) +</p> +<p> +Nowadays there are many people making a living this way. I recently +heard from somebody in South America who said that he know 30 people +there who are making a living this way. South America is not among the +technologically most advanced parts of the world, but this is already +starting there. In 1989 or 1990, I believe, a company was started to +do this kind of business, and that company was started by three +people. In several years it had grown to 50 people, and it had been +profitable every year. They could have kept on doing it, but they got +greedy, and so they started developing nonfree software, and later on +they were purchased by Red Hat. +</p> +<p> +Anyway, the free software business is a new way of doing business that +does not exist in the proprietary software world. So people often +wonder how would free software affect employment. Suppose every +computer user had freedom. Suppose, therefore, that all software were +free software. In other words, if you have the program, you have the +freedom to run it, study it, change it and redistribute it.What would +that do to employment in the information technology field? +</p> +<p> +Well, of all the employment in the field, a small fraction is +programming; and most programming is custom software, software being +written for one client. That is perfectly okay; as long as the client +gets the source code and gets the full rights to control the software +once he has paid for it, then this is legitimate. In fact, it is free +software for the client who has it. [Thus, only the programming +which is not client-specific is really nonfree.] +</p> +<p> +So of this fraction that is programming, most of that is custom +software; software to be published is a small fraction of a small +fraction of the total [IT sector employment]. +</p> +<p> +So, what would free software do? It might eliminate this tiny fraction +of the employment, but maybe not. Because while the possibility of +paying these programmers by restricting the users would go away, there +would be a new possibility instead of supporting programmers who would +be paid to make improvements and extensions in free software. So will +we lose more jobs or gain more jobs? Nobody knows. It is impossible to +tell. What we do know is that the decrease in employment in the IT +field is limited to this small fraction of a small fraction, which is +programming for publication. The rest would continue the way it is +now. So it is clear that there is no problem for employment. +</p> +<p> +What about another issue people sometimes raise: Could we possibly +develop enough software and make it free? The answer is obvious +because we already are. The people who ask this question are like +asking could airplanes really stay up? Well, I flew in one. Probably +all of you have flown in airplanes too. I think they can stay up. In +free software today, we have hundreds of people, maybe thousands, +getting paid to develop free software. But we have over half a million +volunteer developers of free software working part time and not +getting paid and developing a lot of software. +</p> +<p> +So in fact, free software business is not necessary for free software +to do its job. Free software business is very desirable. The more we +can develop institutions that funnel funds from users to free software +developers, the more free software we can produce, the better we can +produce it. So it is certainly desirable, but it is not crucial. We +have already developed two entire operating systems, two graphical +user interface desktops and two office suites that are free +software. +</p> +<p> +People are creatively looking for ways to fund free software, and some +[ways] work and some do not, as you might expect. For instance, last +summer, there was a product that people had liked but was nonfree +called Blender, and the business decided it was no use supporting this +or selling this anymore. They discontinued it. But the developers did +not want it to be discontinued, so they negotiated a deal: If they +could raise $100,000, they could buy the rights and make it free +software. So they went to the community, and in a few weeks they +raised the money. Blender is now free software. This suggests that +maybe we can raise money from the community in the same way to make +specific extensions. +</p> +<p> +A programmer who has a name, a reputation for ability, could go to the +community and say, “If people put up this much money, I will do +the work.” He does not have to do the work entirely himself. He +can employ other programmers working with him, and this is how you +would get started. Before you have a name, before you could go to the +community on the strength of your own reputation, you could be working +as an apprentice for other programmers. They raise the funds, they +supervise the work, but by doing this, eventually you develop a +reputation too, and then you can go and get clients. +</p> +<p> +There are also, of course, legitimate roles for government funding in +developing useful software, just as governments fund scientific +research designed to be of use to the citizens, and even just for the +sake of human curiosity, but certainly to be of use for the citizens, +for the public. It is equally legitimate for governments to fund the +development of software that is going be of use to the public, and +then when it is done, hand it off to the public and say, +“Everyone can now use and improve this. It is human +knowledge.” Because that is what free software is really +about. It is human knowledge, knowledge that belongs to humanity, to +all beings. A nonfree program is restricted knowledge, knowledge that +is kept under control by a few, and other people cannot really have +access to it. They can only use it barely on sufferance. They can +never have the knowledge. +</p> +<p> +For this reason, it is essential that schools use free software. There +are three reasons why schools should use exclusively free +software. The most shallow reason is to save money. Even in a +developed country, schools never have enough money, and so the use of +computers in schools is held back. Now, if the schools use free +software, then the school system has the freedom to make copies and +redistribute them to all the schools and they do not have to pay for +permission to use the software. So the school system can thus install +more computers, make more facilities available. In addition, the GNU +plus Linux operating system is more efficient than Windows, so you can +use an older, less powerful, cheaper model of computer. Maybe you can +use a second-hand computer that somebody else is getting rid of. So +that is another way to save. That is obvious, but it is shallow. +</p> +<p> +A more important reason for schools to use free software is for the +sake of learning. You see, in the teenage years, some students are +going to want to learn everything there is to know about the inside of +the computer system. These are the people who can become good +programmers. If you want to develop a strong programming capacity, +people prepared not just to work as part of a big team in a rather +mechanical way, but people who will take the initiative, do big +things, develop powerful, exciting programs, then you need to +encourage the impulse to do that, whenever a kid has that impulse. So +it is important to provide facilities and a social milieu that +encourages this kind of learning to develop. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>The way to do this is the +schools should run free software, and whenever a kid starts wondering, +“How does this actually work?” the teacher can say, +“This is done by the Fubar program. You can find the source code +of the Fubar program there. Go read it and figure it out, see for +yourself how this works.” Then if a kid says, “You know, I +have got an idea for how this could be better,” the teacher +could say, “Why not give it a try? Try writing it. Make the +change in the Fubar program to change this one feature.” +</p> +<p> +To learn to be a good writer, you have to read a lot and write a +lot. It is the same if you are writing software: You have to read a +lot of software and write a lot of software. To learn to understand +big programs, you have to work with big programs. But how can you get +started at that? When you are beginning, you cannot write a big +program yourself, not and do a good job, because you have not learned +how. So how are you going to learn? The answer is you have to read +existing big programs and then try making small changes in +them. Because at that stage, you cannot write a big program yourself, +but you can write a small improvement in a big program. +</p> +<p> +That is how I learned to be a good programmer. I had a special +opportunity at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There was a +lab where they had written their own operating system, and then they +used it. I went there and they said, “We would like to hire +you.” They hired me to improve the programs in this operating +system. It was my second year of college. At the time, I could not +have written an operating system myself. I could not have written +those programs from zero, but I could read them and add a feature and +then add another feature and another and another. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>Every week I would +add another feature to some program. By doing this many, many times, I +developed my skill. In the 1970s, the only way you could get that +opportunity was to be in a very special place. But today, we can give +that opportunity to everyone. All you need is a PC running the +GNU/Linux system with the source code, and you have this +opportunity. So you can easily encourage Japanese teenagers, those of +them who are fascinated by computers, to become good programmers. +</p> +<p> +I have a friend who was a high school teacher around 1980, and he set +up the first Unix machine in a high school. He then mentored the high +school students so that they learned to become good +programmers. Several of them were very good programmers with +reputations by the time they graduated from high school. I am sure any +high school has a few people who have that talent and will want to +develop it. They just need the opportunity. So that is the second +reason why schools should use free software exclusively. +</p> +<p> +The third reason is even more fundamental. We want schools to teach +facts and skill, of course, but also good moral character, which means +being prepared to help other people. That means the school should say +to the kids, “Any software that is here, you can copy it. Copy +it and take it home. That is what it is here for. If you bring any +software to school, you must share it with the other kids. If you are +not willing to share it with the other kids, do not bring it here, it +does not belong here, because we are teaching kids to be helpful to +each other.” Education of moral character is important for every +society. +</p> +<p> +I did not invent the idea of free software. Free software began as +soon as there were two computers of the same kind, because then people +using one computer would write some software, and the people using the +other computer would say, “Do you know anything to solve this +problem?” and they would say, “Yes. We wrote something to +solve this problem. Here is a copy.” So they started exchanging +the software that they had developed, so that they could all develop +more. But in the 1960s, there was a trend to replace it with nonfree +software, a trend to subjugate the users, to deny users freedom. +</p> +<p> +When I was in my first year of college, I got to see a moral example +that impressed me. I was using a computer facility, and at this +facility they said, “This is an educational institution, and we +are here for people to learn about computer science. So we will have a +rule: any time software is installed on a system, the source code must +be on display so people can read it and learn how this software +works.” +<span class="gnun-split"></span>One of the employees wrote a utility program and he +started selling it as nonfree software. He was not just selling +copies the way I was doing; he was restricting the users. But he +offered the school a copy at no charge, and the people in charge of +the computer facility said, “No, we will not install this here +because our rule is the source code must be on display. If you will +not let us put the source code of this program on display, we just +will not run your program.” This inspired me because it was a +willingness to renounce a practical convenience for the sake of +something more important which is the mission of the school: +education. +</p> +<p> +The lab where I worked at MIT was an exception though in the 1970s due +to the fact that we had an operating system that was free +software. Most computers were using nonfree operating systems at the +time. But I was inspired by the example that I saw there and I learned +to live in that way. I learned the way of life where you will teach +your knowledge to others instead of keeping it all for yourself. Then +this community died in the early 1980s. At that point, I started the +free software movement. I did not begin free software. I learned the +free software way of life by joining a lab where people already +practiced it. What I did was to turn this into an ethical and social +movement, to say that this is a matter of choosing between a good +society and an ugly society, between a clean, kind, helpful way of +life where we have freedom, and a way of life where everybody is in +bondage to various empires that conquer them, where people believe +they have no practical choice but to give up their freedom. +</p> +<p> +Theoretically speaking, on the one hand people say, “Oh, nobody +forces you to use that nonfree software. Nobody forces you to use +Microsoft Word.” On the other hand, you have people saying, +“I have no choice.” So practically speaking, it is not a +situation of individual choice. Yes, it is true, if you are determined +to be free, determined to reject it, you can do it, but it takes a lot +of determination. When we started 20 years ago, it took tremendous +work to use a computer without the nonfree software. All the +operating systems for modern computers in 1983 were proprietary. You +could not get a computer and use it, except with nonfree software. To +change this, we had to spend years working, and we did, we changed it. +</p> +<p> +For you, today, the situation is easier. There are free operating +systems. You can get a modern computer and use it with free software, +exclusively with free software. So nowadays, instead of a tremendous +sacrifice, you just have to make a temporary, small sacrifice, and +then you can live in freedom. By working together, we can eliminate +that sacrifice. We can make it easier to live in freedom. But for that +we have to work. We have to recognize freedom as a social value. +</p> +<p> +Every government tries to get its work done inexpensively, and every +government agency has a specific job to get done. So when government +agencies choose their computers, they tend to look at narrow, +practical questions: How much will it cost, when can we have it +running, and so on. +</p> +<p> +But the government has a larger mission, which is to lead the country +in a healthy direction, one that is good for the citizens. So when +government agencies choose their computer systems, they should make +this choice so as to lead the country to free software. It is better +for the economy of the country because the users, instead of paying +merely for permission to run the software, will be paying people in +the local area to improve it and adapt it for them. So in instead of +all draining away to Redmond, Washington, the money will circulate in +the region, creating employment locally instead of filling +somebody's pockets. But more important, it creates a way of life +where the country and the people are independent and free. +</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> + +<!-- 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 © 2003 Richard M. Stallman</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 12:40:44 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |