summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html227
1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..db687a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+<!-- 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="The-X-Window-System-Trap">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+ 36. The X Window System Trap
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-traps_002c-X-Window-System">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-X-Window-System-5">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-developers_002c-to-copyleft-or-not-to-copyleft_003f">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major
+controversies in the free software community. The idea of copyleft is
+that we should fight fire with fire—that we should use copyright
+to make sure our code stays free. The GNU General Public License (GNU
+GPL) is one example of a copyleft license.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution.
+Noncopyleft licenses such as the
+ <a name="index-XFree86-license">
+ </a>
+ XFree86 and
+ <a name="index-BSD-licenses-_0028see-also-both-_0060_0060BSD_002dstyle_0027_0027-and-GPL_0029-2">
+ </a>
+ BSD licenses are based on the idea
+of never saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to
+use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft
+licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to
+actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For
+that, we need copyleft.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-copylefted-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-3">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-copyleft_002c-X-Consortium-opposition-to">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-X-Consortium-_0028see-also-Open-Group_002c-its-successor_0029-3">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft.
+It exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software
+developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by
+suggesting that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through
+its rule that copylefted software could not be in the X Distribution.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their
+conception of success. The X Consortium defined success as
+popularity—specifically, getting computer companies to use the X
+Window System. This definition put the computer companies in the
+driver’s seat: whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help
+them get it.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They
+wanted free software developers to donate their work for such use. If
+they had asked for this directly, people would have laughed. But the
+X Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as an
+unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software
+developers,” they said, suggesting that this is a noble form of
+self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,” they said,
+suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that
+copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community,
+is sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X
+Consortium’s request entrusted the community’s future to the goodwill
+of the X Consortium.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-X11R6_002e4-1">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a
+plan to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it would not
+be free software. They decided to start saying no, not only to
+proprietary software developers, but to our community as well.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked
+you not to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to
+license and restrict its version of your program, along with the
+code for the core of X.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down
+and transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now
+carrying out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them
+to release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned
+restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They
+were firmly against staying with the old
+ <a name="index-X11-licenses-3">
+ </a>
+ X11 distribution terms.)
+Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed for
+another reason: the
+ <a name="index-XFree86-1">
+ </a>
+ XFree86 group followed the X Consortium’s old
+policy, and will not accept copylefted software.
+ <a name="index-copylefted-software-_0028see-also-software_0029-4">
+ </a>
+ </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. Thus, the Open Group therefore eventually did
+what was right, but that does not alter the general issue.
+ <a name="index-X11R6_002e4-2">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to
+restrict X, someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software
+is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree
+version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add
+significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who
+choose software based on technical characteristics, rather than on
+freedom, could easily be lured to the nonfree version for short-term
+convenience.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by
+saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide
+to copyleft your X-related software.
+ <a name="index-X-Consortium-_0028see-also-Open-Group_002c-its-successor_0029-4">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-copyleft_002c-X-Consortium-opposition-to-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server,
+Xlib, and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The
+ <a name="index-X_002eorg">
+ </a>
+ X.org group does an important job for the community in maintaining
+these programs, and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be
+less than the harm done by a fork in development. So it is better to
+work with them, and not copyleft our changes on these programs.
+Likewise for utilities such as
+ <a name="index-xset">
+ </a>
+ <code>
+ xset
+ </code>
+ and
+ <a name="index-xrdb">
+ </a>
+ <code>
+ xrdb
+ </code>
+ , which are close to the
+core of X and do not need major improvements. At least we know that
+the X.org group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as
+free software.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The issue is different for programs outside the core of X:
+applications, window managers, and additional libraries and widgets.
+There is no reason not to copyleft them, and we should copyleft them.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for
+inclusion in the X distributions, the
+ <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-9">
+ </a>
+ GNU Project will undertake to
+publicize copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to
+copyleft something, and you worry that its omission from the X
+distribution will impede its popularity, please ask us to help.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-resist-illusory-temptations-of-proprietary-software">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for
+popularity. When a businessman tempts you with “more
+popularity,” he may try to convince you that his use of your
+program is crucial to its success. Don’t believe it! If your program
+is good, it will find many users anyway; you don’t need to feel
+desperate for any particular users, and you will be stronger if you do
+not. You can get an indescribable sense of joy and freedom by
+responding, “Take it or leave it—that’s no skin off my
+back.” Often the businessman will turn around and accept the
+program with copyleft, once you call the bluff.
+ </p>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-copyleft-your-software">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+ Friends, free software developers, don’t repeat old mistakes! If we
+do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone
+equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can
+defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole
+community.
+ <a name="index-developers_002c-to-copyleft-or-not-to-copyleft_003f-1">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-X-Window-System-6">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-traps_002c-X-Window-System-1">
+ </a>
+ </p>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+