diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html | 227 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 227 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html deleted file mode 100644 index db687a9..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_36.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,227 +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="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"/> - |