diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_22.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_22.html | 253 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 253 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_22.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_22.html deleted file mode 100644 index bd14787..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_22.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,253 +0,0 @@ -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> - - - <a name="Copyleft_003a-Pragmatic-Idealism"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 22. Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism - </h1> - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-5"> - </a> - <p> - Every decision a person makes stems from the person’s values and -goals. People can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, -love, survival, fun, and freedom, are just some of the goals that a -good person might have. When the goal is a matter of principle, we -call that idealism. - </p> - <p> - My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading -freedom and cooperation. I want -to encourage free software to -spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, -and thus make our society better. - </p> - <p> - That’s the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written -the way it is—as a copyleft. -All code added to a GPL-covered program -must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make -my code available for use in free software, and not for use in -proprietary software, in order to encourage other people who write -software to make it free as well. I figure that since proprietary -software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we -cooperators can use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage -of their own: they can use our code. - </p> - <p> - Not everyone who uses the GNU GPL has this goal. Many years ago, a -friend of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under -noncopyleft terms, and he responded more or less like this: “Sometimes I work on free software, and sometimes I work on proprietary software—but when I work on proprietary software, I expect to get - <em> - paid. - </em> - ” - </p> - <p> - He was willing to share his work with a community that shares -software, but saw no reason to give a handout to a business making -products that would be off-limits to our community. His goal was -different from mine, but he decided that the GNU GPL was useful for -his goal too. - </p> - <p> - If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not -enough—you need to choose a method that works to achieve the -goal. In other words, you need to be “pragmatic.” Is the -GPL pragmatic? Let’s look at its results. - </p> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-3"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C_002b_002b-compiler-1"> - </a> - <p> - Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because -the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an -industry consortium, - <a name="index-MCC"> - </a> - MCC, starting from the - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-compiler-_0028see-also-GNU_002c-GCC_0029-4"> - </a> - GNU C compiler. MCC -normally makes its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the -C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the -only way they could release it. The C++ front end included many new -files, but since they were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL -did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident. - </p> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Objective-C"> - </a> - <p> - Consider GNU Objective C. - <a name="index-NeXT"> - </a> - NeXT initially wanted to make this front -end proprietary; they proposed to release it as ‘ - <tt> - .o - </tt> - ’ files, -and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a -way around the GPL’s requirements. But our lawyer said that this -would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so -they made the Objective C front end free software. - </p> - <p> - Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues -to bring us more free software. - </p> - <a name="index-LGPL_002c-and-GNU-libraries-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-libraries-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029_002c-GNU-2"> - </a> - <p> - Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public -License, but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the -ordinary GNU GPL is - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Readline-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-Readline-_0028see-also-both-libraries-_0028comp_002e_0029-and-GNU_0029"> - </a> - Readline, which implements command-line editing. -I once found out about a nonfree program which was designed -to use Readline, and told the developer this was not allowed. He -could have taken command-line editing out of the program, but what he -actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is free software. - </p> - <p> - The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or - <a name="index-Emacs_002c-GNU-6"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Emacs-6"> - </a> - Emacs, or - <a name="index-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029_002c-GNU-3"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-BASH-_0028Bourne-Again-Shell_0029-3"> - </a> - Bash, or -Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or -universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to -the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, -“Hold on there—your code belongs to us! We don’t want to -share it; we have decided to turn your improved version into a -proprietary software product.” - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-4"> - </a> - </p> - <p> - Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss -that this proprietary software product would be copyright -infringement, and the boss realizes that he has only two choices: -release the new code as free software, or not at all. Almost always -he lets the programmer do as he intended all along, and the code goes -into the next release. - </p> - <a name="index-GPL-4"> - </a> - <p> - The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says no to some of -the things that people sometimes want to do. There are users who say -that this is a bad thing—that the GPL “excludes” -some proprietary software developers who “need to be brought -into the free software community.” - </p> - <p> - But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing -not to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a -decision to stay out of our community. Being in our community means -joining in cooperation with us; we cannot “bring them into our -community” if they don’t want to join. - </p> - <p> - What we - <em> - can - </em> - do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU -GPL is designed to make an inducement from our existing software: -“If you will make your software free, you can use this -code.” Of course, it won’t win ’em all, but it wins some of the -time. - </p> - <p> - Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, -but its developers often want handouts from us. Free software users -can offer free software developers strokes for the -ego—recognition and gratitude—but it can be very tempting -when a business tells you, “Just let us put your package in our -proprietary program, and your program will be used by many thousands -of people!” The temptation can be powerful, but in the long run -we are all better off if we resist it. - </p> - <p> - The temptation and pressure are harder to recognize when they come -indirectly, through free software organizations that have adopted a -policy of catering to proprietary software. The - <a name="index-X-Consortium-_0028see-also-Open-Group_002c-its-successor_0029-2"> - </a> - X Consortium (and its -successor, the - <a name="index-Open-Group-_0028see-also-X-Consortium_002c-its-precursor_0029"> - </a> - Open Group) offers an example: funded by companies that -made proprietary software, they strived for a decade to persuade -programmers not to use copyleft. When the Open Group tried to make - <a name="index-X11R6_002e4"> - </a> - X11R6.4 nonfree software, those -of us who had resisted that pressure were glad that we did. - </p> - <p> - In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with -nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and -rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that -was used for X11R6.3. Thank you, Open Group—but this subsequent -reversal does not invalidate the conclusions we draw from the fact -that adding the restrictions was - <em> - possible. - </em> - <a name="index-Open-Group-_0028see-also-X-Consortium_002c-its-precursor_0029-1"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-copyleft"> - </a> - <p> - Pragmatically speaking, thinking about greater long-term goals will -strengthen your will to resist this pressure. If you focus your mind -on the freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you -will find the strength to do it. “Stand for something, or you -will fall for anything.” - </p> - <p> - And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community…if -“hard-nosed realists” say that profit is the only -ideal…just ignore them, and use copyleft all the same. - <a name="index-copyleft-_0028see-also-copyright_0029-6"> - </a> - </p> - |