diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html | 886 |
1 files changed, 886 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..79bbcf1 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html @@ -0,0 +1,886 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>Why Software Should Be Free +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Why Software Should Be Free</h2> + +<p> +by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p> +<h3 id="introduction">Introduction</h3> +<p> +The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how +decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one +individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a +copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide +whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party, +called the “owner”?</p> +<p> + Software developers typically consider these questions on the +assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers' +profits. The political power of business has led to the government +adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the +developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation +associated with its development.</p> +<p> + I would like to consider the same question using a different +criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.</p> +<p> + This answer cannot be decided by current law—the law should +conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current +practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible +answers. The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is +hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much. In other +words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society +as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production +of material goods.</p> +<p> + In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and +show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that +programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, +study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free” +software</a>.<a href="#f1">(1)</a></p> + +<h3 id="owner-justification">How Owners Justify Their Power</h3> +<p> + Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property +offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the +emotional argument and the economic argument.</p> +<p> + The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my +heart, my soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>, +it's <em>mine</em>!”</p> +<p> + This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of +attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; +it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same +programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a +salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast, +consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't +even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist +was not important. What mattered was that the work was done—and +the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of +years.</p> +<p> + The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich +(usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and +if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't +program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And +then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is +usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise.</p> +<p> + I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to +address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another +formulation of the argument.</p> +<p> + This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a +proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that +proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and +should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two +outcomes—proprietary software versus no software—and assuming +there are no other possibilities.</p> +<p> + Given a system of software copyright, software development is +usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the +software's use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced with +the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage is +not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific +social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to +have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software +versus no software is begging the question.</p> + +<h3 id="against-having-owners">The Argument against Having Owners</h3> +<p> + The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked +with having owners to restrict the use of it?”</p> +<p> + In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of +each of those two activities <em>independently</em>: the effect of developing +the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect +of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If +one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be +better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.</p> +<p> + To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program +already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical +software developer will reject the option of doing so.</p> +<p> + To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare +the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with +that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing +two possible worlds.</p> +<p> + This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes +made that “the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a +copy of a program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.” +This counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal +in magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and +shows that the benefit is much greater.</p> +<p> + To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road +construction.</p> +<p> + It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with +tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners. +Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It +would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to +pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction +to smooth driving—artificial, because it is not a consequence of +how roads or cars work.</p> +<p> + Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find +that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to +construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to +use.<a href="#f2">(2)</a> In a poor country, tolls may make the roads +unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus +offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for +society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another +way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be +free.</p> +<p> + When the advocates of toll booths propose them as <em>merely</em> a +way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll +booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, +they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; +giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement +if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.</p> +<p> + Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the +public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability +of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for +our money by buying a free road.</p> +<p> + I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. +That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used +the road—but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. +However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and +inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive +fashion.</p> +<p> + To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show +that having “toll booths” for useful software programs +costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to +construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and +efficient to use. It will follow that program construction should be +encouraged in some other way. Then I will go on to explain other +methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding +software development.</p> + +<h4 id="harm-done">The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4> +<p> + Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any +necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must +choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use. +Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a +desirable thing.<a href="#f3">(3)</a></p> +<p> + Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program +cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can +only be negative. But how much? And what kind?</p> +<p> + Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:</p> + +<ul> +<li>Fewer people use the program.</li> + +<li>None of the users can adapt or fix the program.</li> + +<li>Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it.</li> +</ul> + +<p> + Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial +harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their +subsequent feelings, attitudes, and predispositions. These changes in +people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their +relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material +consequences.</p> +<p> + The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the +program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they +waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program +harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program. +Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net +direct material benefit.</p> +<p> + However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there +is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.</p> + +<h4 id="obstructing-use">Obstructing Use of Programs</h4> +<p> + The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy +of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by +doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero +price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program. +If a widely useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it.</p> +<p> + It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to +society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of +the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay, +or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a +zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone +chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without +benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be +negative.</p> +<p> + But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to <em>develop</em> +the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in +delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.</p> +<p> + This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and +cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material +objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy; +anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little +effort. This isn't true for material objects because matter is +conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same +way that the first copy was built.</p> +<p> + With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense, +because fewer objects bought means less raw material and work needed +to make them. It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a +development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long +as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the +development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does +not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.</p> +<p> + However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free +is a qualitative change. A centrally imposed fee for software +distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.</p> +<p> + What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even +as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves +enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping +large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This +cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part +of the waste caused by having owners.</p> + +<h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion">Damaging Social Cohesion</h4> +<p> + Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a +certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel +that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it. +A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while +restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should +find it acceptable.</p> +<p> + Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your +neighbor: “I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so +that I can have a copy for myself.” People who make such choices +feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading +the importance of helping one's neighbors—thus public spirit +suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm +of discouraging use of the program.</p> +<p> + Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so +they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway. +But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must +break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider +the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor +(which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of +psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses +and laws have no moral force.</p> +<p> + Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users +will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of +cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the +work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, “Will I be +permitted to use it?”, his face falls, and he admits the answer is no. +To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the +time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of +it.</p> +<p> + Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States +is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together +for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the +expense of the latter.</p> + +<h4 id="custom-adaptation">Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs</h4> +<p> + The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs. +The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over +older technology. But most commercially available software isn't +available for modification, even after you buy it. It's available for +you to take it or leave it, as a black box—that is all.</p> +<p> + A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose +meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily +change the numbers to make the program do something different.</p> +<p> + Programmers normally work with the “source code” for a +program, which is written in a programming language such as Fortran or +C. It uses names to designate the data being used and the parts of +the program, and it represents operations with symbols such as +‘+’ for addition and ‘-’ for subtraction. It +is designed to help programmers read and change programs. Here is an +example; a program to calculate the distance between two points in a +plane:</p> + +<pre> + float + distance (p0, p1) + struct point p0, p1; + { + float xdist = p1.x - p0.x; + float ydist = p1.y - p0.y; + return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist); + } +</pre> +<p> + Precisely what that source code means is not the point; the point + is that it looks like algebra, and a person who knows this + programming language will find it meaningful and clear. By + contrast, here is same program in executable form, on the computer + I normally used when I wrote this: +</p> + +<pre> + 1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862 + 1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208 + -234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424 + 1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495 + 572518958 -803143692 1314803317 +</pre> + +<p> + Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a +program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source +code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret +by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive +only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will +execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the +program.</p> +<p> + A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for +about six months, writing a program similar to something that was +commercially available. She believed that if she could have gotten +source code for that commercially available program, it could easily +have been adapted to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for +this, but was not permitted to—the source code was a secret. So +she had to do six months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but +was actually waste.</p> +<p> + The <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> +Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a +gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we +added many convenient features. For example, the software would +notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the +printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the +software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs +queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.</p> +<p> + Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first +laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a +separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite +features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was +sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually +printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to +find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And +no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often +went for an hour without being fixed.</p> +<p> + The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such +problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program. +Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we +were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.</p> +<p> + Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank +could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from +scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.</p> +<p> + Giving up causes psychosocial harm—to the spirit of +self-reliance. It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot +rearrange to suit your needs. It leads to resignation and +discouragement, which can spread to affect other aspects of one's +life. People who feel this way are unhappy and do not do good +work.</p> +<p> + Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same +fashion as software. You might say, “How do I change this +recipe to take out the salt?” and the great chef would respond, +“How dare you insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my +palate, by trying to tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to +change my recipe and make it work right!”</p> +<p> + “But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I +do? Will you take out the salt for me?”</p> +<p> + “I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.” +Since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. +“However, right now I don't have time. I am busy with a +commission to design a new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy +Department. I might get around to you in about two years.”</p> + +<h4 id="software-development">Obstructing Software Development</h4> +<p> + The third level of material harm affects software development. +Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a +person would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one +new feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add +another feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty +years. Meanwhile, parts of the program would be +“cannibalized” to form the beginnings of other +programs.</p> +<p> + The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it +necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also +prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn +useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.</p> +<p> + Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in +computer science who have never seen the source code of a large +program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't +begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't +see how others have done it.</p> +<p> + In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by +standing on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally +allowed in the software field—you can only stand on the +shoulders of the other people <em>in your own company</em>.</p> +<p> + The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific +cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate +even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese +oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific +carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a +note asking them to take good care of it.</p> +<p> + Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared. +Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers +to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough +to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is +certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the +programs reported on is usually secret.</p> + +<h4 id="does-not-matter-how">It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted</h4> +<p> + I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from +copying, changing, and building on a program. I have not specified +how this obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the +conclusion. Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or +licenses, or encryption, or <abbr title="Read-only Memory">ROM</abbr> +cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it <em>succeeds</em> in +preventing use, it does harm.</p> +<p> + Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others. +I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their +objective.</p> + +<h4 id="should-be-free">Software Should be Free</h4> +<p> + I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict +changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are +widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have +owners for programs.</p> +<p> + Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free +software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging +the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.</p> +<p> + Vaclav Havel has advised us to “Work for something because it is +good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.” A business +making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow +terms, but it is not what is good for society.</p> + +<h3 id="why-develop">Why People Will Develop Software</h3> +<p> + If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging +people to develop software, at first less software will be developed, +but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the +overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if +we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage +development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money +for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to +question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.</p> + +<h4 id="fun">Programming is Fun</h4> +<p> + There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money; +road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and +art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter +for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples +include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and +political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly +than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is +funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the +field, if they can afford to.</p> +<p> + Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the +possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand +the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing +what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by, +everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would +be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise +social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing +special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.</p> +<p> + This change happened in the field of computer programming in the +1980s. In the 1970s, there were articles on +“computer addiction”: users were “onlining” +and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits. It was generally understood +that people frequently loved programming enough to break up their +marriages. Today, it is generally understood that no one would +program except for a high rate of pay. People have forgotten what they +knew back then.</p> +<p> + When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a +certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic +of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we +take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the +people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager +to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.</p> +<p> + The question “How can we pay programmers?” becomes an +easier question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them +a fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p> + +<h4 id="funding">Funding Free Software</h4> +<p> + Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses. +Many other institutions already exist that can do this.</p> +<p> + Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software +development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In +1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider +restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join consortiums +shows their realization that owning the software is not what is really +important for them.</p> +<p> + Universities conduct many programming projects. Today they often +sell the results, but in the 1970s they did not. Is there any doubt +that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed +to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same +government contracts and grants that now support proprietary software +development.</p> +<p> + It is common today for university researchers to get grants to +develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and +call that “finished”, and then start companies where they +really finish the project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare +the unfinished version “free”; if they are thoroughly +corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university. +This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned. +Yet if the researchers were not exposed to the temptation to do these +things, they would still do their research.</p> +<p> + Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling +services related to the software. I have been hired to port the +<a href="/software/gcc/">GNU C compiler</a> to new hardware, and +to make user-interface extensions to +<a href="/software/emacs/">GNU Emacs</a>. (I offer these improvements +to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I +am paid.</p> +<p> + I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful, +growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other +companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the +GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support +industry—an industry that could become quite large if free +software becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option +generally unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very +wealthy.</p> +<p> + New institutions such as the <a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Free Software +Foundation</a> can also fund programmers. Most of the Foundation's +funds come from users buying tapes through the mail. The software on +the tapes is free, which means that every user has the freedom to copy +it and change it, but many nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall +that “free software” refers to freedom, not to price.) +Some users who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a +contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives +sizable donations from computer manufacturers.</p> +<p> + The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on +hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a +business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same +fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.</p> +<p> + Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the +Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this +because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction +in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of +all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers +have written many useful programs for us. (Even technical writers +have begun to volunteer.)</p> +<p> + This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all +fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one +will want to program.</p> + +<h4 id="owe">What Do Users Owe to Developers?</h4> +<p> + There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral +obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software +are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in +the long-term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.</p> +<p> + However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers, +since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.</p> +<p> + We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled +to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral +obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A +developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.</p> +<p> + I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act +so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for +voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support +developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public +radio and television stations.</p> + +<h3 id="productivity">What Is Software Productivity? </h3> +<p> + If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps +fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?</p> +<p> + Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than +in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few +deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call +this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer +programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software +productivity at all levels:</p> + +<ul> +<li> Wider use of each program that is developed.</li> +<li> The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead + of starting from scratch.</li> +<li> Better education of programmers.</li> +<li> The elimination of duplicate development effort.</li> +</ul> + +<p> + Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the +employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased +productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely held belief +that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?</p> +<p> + “Software productivity” can mean two different things: +the overall productivity of all software development, or the +productivity of individual projects. Overall productivity is what +society would like to improve, and the most straightforward way to do +this is to eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which +reduce it. But researchers who study the field of “software +productivity” focus only on the second, limited, sense of the +term, where improvement requires difficult technological advances.</p> + +<h3 id="competition">Is Competition Inevitable?</h3> +<p> + Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their +rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not +harmful; the harmful thing is <em>combat</em>.</p> +<p> + There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying +to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in +the old days, there was competition among programming +wizards—competition for who could make the computer do the most +amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program +for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit +everyone, <em>as long as</em> the spirit of good sportsmanship is +maintained.</p> +<p> + Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to +great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have +visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to +do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on +desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.</p> +<p> + Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to +impede each other instead of advancing themselves—when +“Let the best person win” gives way to “Let me win, +best or not.” Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is +a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the +citizens of our society.</p> +<p> + Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when +two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own +operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a +special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for +combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all +areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information +that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.</p> +<p> + Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to +combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with +antitrust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than +generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general, +executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically +prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic +equivalent of factional civil war.</p> + +<h3 id="communism">“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3> +<p> + In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme +form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For +example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care +system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the +free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for +the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens +have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with +Communism. But how similar are these ideas?</p> +<p> + Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of +central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the +common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist +party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent +illegal copying.</p> +<p> + The American system of software copyright exercises central control +over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with +automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.</p> +<p> + By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free +to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their +neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in +their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on +decentralization.</p> +<p> + Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian +Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.</p> + +<h3 id="premises">The Question of Premises</h3> +<p> + I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no +less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other +words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide +which course of action is best.</p> +<p> + This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an +author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else. +They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software +is to give the author's employer the advantage he +deserves—regardless of how this may affect the public.</p> +<p> + It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof +requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed +only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested +in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners +are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant.</p> +<p> + But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise that +elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly +because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions +of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means +challenging the basis of society.</p> +<p> + It is important for these people to know that this premise is not +part of our legal tradition. It never has been.</p> +<p> + Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to +“promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” The +Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in <em>Fox Film +v. Doyal</em> that “The sole interest of the United States +and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in +the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of +authors.”</p> +<p> + We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme +Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions +do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the +awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a +traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.</p> + +<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3> +<p> + We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor; +but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for +the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite +message.</p> +<p> + Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard +the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard +from Ronald Reagan to Dick Cheney, from Exxon to Enron, from +failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of +the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial +spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will +not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays +into a jungle.</p> +<p> + If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. +We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who +cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from +others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to +this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more +efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.</p> + + +<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3> + +<ol> +<li id="f1">The word “free” in “free software” +refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free +program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.</li> + +<li id="f2">The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not +alter this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to +discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using +toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax +on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by +limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road enhances +the average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed +limit.</li> + +<li id="f3">One might regard a particular computer program as a +harmful thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus +Marketplace database of personal information, which was withdrawn from +sale due to public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to +this case, but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on +the grounds that the owner will make the program less available. The +owner will not make it <em>completely</em> unavailable, as one would +wish in the case of a program whose use is considered +destructive.</li> +</ol> + +<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> + +<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017, 2018, 2020 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: 2020/07/01 15:25:23 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |