diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html | 464 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 464 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html deleted file mode 100644 index bf1a922..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_5.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,464 +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="Why-Software-Should-Not-Have-Owners"> - </a> - <h1 class="chapter"> - 5. Why Software Should Not Have Owners - </h1> - <a name="index-competition_002c-impact-on-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-copyright_002c-digital-technology-and"> - </a> - <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> - <a name="index-ownership_002c-and-Soviet_002dstyle-information-control"> - </a> - <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 - <a name="index-Software-Publishers-Association-_0028SPA_0029"> - </a> - Software Publishers Association (SPA): - </p> - <a name="index-copyright_002c-enforcement-measures"> - </a> - <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 - <a name="index-Software-Publishers-Association-_0028SPA_0029-1"> - </a> - SPA’s request) -of people such as MIT’s - <a name="index-LaMacchia_002c-David"> - </a> - 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="#FOOT22" name="DOCF22"> - (22) - </a> - </li> - </ul> - <p> - All four practices resemble those used in the former - <a name="index-Soviet-Union"> - </a> - 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: - <a name="index-ownership_002c-and-Soviet_002dstyle-information-control-1"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="Name-Calling"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Name Calling - </h3> - <a name="index-ownership_002c-arguments-for"> - </a> - <a name="index-users_002c-arguments-used-to-justify-control-over"> - </a> - <a name="index-terminology_002c-importance-of-using-correct"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060intellectual-property_002c_0027_0027-bias-and-fallacy-of-term-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060theft_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060damage_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term"> - </a> - <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> - <a name="Exaggeration"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Exaggeration - </h3> - <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> - <a name="The-Law"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - The Law - </h3> - <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> - <a name="Natural-Rights"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Natural Rights - </h3> - <a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-users_002c-premise-of-author-supremacy-_0028see-also-ownership_0029"> - </a> - <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> - <a name="index-software_002c-overstretched-analogy-with-material-objects"> - </a> - <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 - <a name="index-Constitution_002c-authors_0027-natural-rights-and-US"> - </a> - 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. - <a name="index-programmers_002c-and-creativity-and-entitlement-3"> - </a> - <a name="index-users_002c-premise-of-author-supremacy-_0028see-also-ownership_0029-1"> - </a> - </p> - <a name="Economics"> - </a> - <h3 class="subheading"> - Economics - </h3> - <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> - <a name="index-software_002c-overstretched-analogy-with-material-objects-1"> - </a> - <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. - <a name="index-users_002c-arguments-used-to-justify-control-over-1"> - </a> - <a name="index-ownership_002c-arguments-for-1"> - </a> - </p> - <br> - <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> - <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-cooperation"> - </a> - <a name="index-_0060_0060piracy_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-3"> - </a> - <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 free software 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> - <a name="index-developers_002c-funding-for"> - </a> - <a name="index-programmers_002c-income-for-7"> - </a> - <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> - <a name="index-Stallman_002c-Richard-2"> - </a> - <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, - <a name="index-Cygnus-Support"> - </a> - 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 - <a name="index-Intel-_0028see-also-_0060_0060trusted-computing_0027_0027_0029"> - </a> - Intel, - <a name="index-Motorola-1"> - </a> - Motorola, - <a name="index-Texas-Instruments"> - </a> - <a name="index-Analog-Devices"> - </a> - Analog Devices -Texas Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued -development of the - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-C-compiler-_0028see-also-GNU_002c-GCC_0029-2"> - </a> - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GCC-2"> - </a> - GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done -by paid developers. The - <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-compiler"> - </a> - GNU compiler for the - <a name="index-Ada-language"> - </a> - Ada language was funded -in the 90s by the - <a name="index-Air-Force_002c-US"> - </a> - 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> - <a name="index-citizen-values_002c-cooperation-1"> - </a> - <p> - As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a -proprietary 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> - <div class="footnote"> - <hr> - <h3> - Footnotes - </h3> - <h3> - <a href="#DOCF22" name="FOOT22"> - (22) - </a> - </h3> - <p> - The charges were subsequently -dismissed. - </p> - </hr> - </div> - <hr size="2"/> - </br> - |