diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html | 375 |
1 files changed, 375 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b1d2b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html @@ -0,0 +1,375 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + +<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" /> + +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard +Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<p> +Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it +easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this +easier for all of us.</p> + +<p> +Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives +software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold +software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would +like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we +use.</p> + +<p> +The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for +mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology +because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not +take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did +not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and +few readers were sued for that.</p> + +<p> +Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when +information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with +others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like +copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian +measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four +practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p> + +<ul> +<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to +help your friend.</li> + +<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and +colleagues.</li> + +<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people +are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li> + +<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people +such as +<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s +David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of +copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and +failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li> +</ul> + +<p> +All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, +where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, +and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it +from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the +motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in +the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, +not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no +matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p> + +<p> +Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power +to control how we use information:</p> + + +<ul> +<li id="name-calling">Name calling. + +<p> +Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and +“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as +“intellectual property” and “damage”, to +suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic +analogy between programs and physical objects.</p> + +<p> +Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about +whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone else. They +don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But the owners +ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li> + +<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration. + +<p> +Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic +loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has +no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can +lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid +for one from the owner.</p> + +<p> +A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought +copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each +and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to +put it kindly.</p></li> + +<li id="law">The law. + +<p> +Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh +penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the +suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of +morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these +penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p> + +<p> +This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical +thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p> + +<p> +It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American +should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many +states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only +racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li> + +<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights. + +<p> +Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have +written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and +interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone +else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically +companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are +expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p> + +<p> +To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more +important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software +author myself, call it bunk.</p> + +<p> +But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the +natural rights claims for two reasons.</p> + +<p> +One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I +cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I +cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits +him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one? +The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical +balance.</p> + +<p> +But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly +and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend +affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't +have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p> + +<p> +The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights +for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.</p> + +<p> +As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural +rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US +Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only +<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em> +one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also +states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not +to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and +publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their +behavior.</p> + +<p> +The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts +into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be +justified for the public's sake.</p></li> + +<li id="economics">Economics. + +<p> +The final argument made for having owners of software is that this +leads to production of more software.</p> + +<p> +Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach +to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the +users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will +produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p> + +<p> +But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption +that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. +It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want, +whether the software has owners or not.</p> + +<p> +People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our +experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. +You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or +for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. +Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, +the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it +once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot +directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p> + +<p> +This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it +has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you +can do with it if you acquire it.</p> + +<p> +But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and +what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not +just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages +software owners to produce something—but not what society really +needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us +all.</p></li> + +</ul> + +<p> +What does society need? It needs information that is truly available +to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, +adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners +typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p> + +<p> +Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users +lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p> + +<p> +And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary +cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that +helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they +pollute our society's civic spirit.</p> + +<p> +This is why we say that +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> +is a matter of freedom, not price.</p> + +<p> +The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue +is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of +writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software +than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p> + +<p> +Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods +of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone +rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are +less satisfying than programming.</p> + +<p> +For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living +from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each +enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus +eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so +that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the +features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p> + +<p> +Some free software developers make money by selling support services. +In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that +about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software +development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p> + +<p> +In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas +Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued +development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done +by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded +in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company +formed specifically for the purpose.</p> + +<p> +The free software movement is still small, but the example of +listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a +large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p> + +<p> +As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a> +program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to +refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But +underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A +person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and +this means saying no to proprietary software.</p> + +<p> +You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other +people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the +software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be +able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p> + +<p> +You deserve free software.</p> + +<h3>Footnotes</h3> +<ol> +<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</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> + +<!-- 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 © 1994, 2009, 2020 Richard Stallman</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> +</body> +</html> |