From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html | 166 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 166 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ec67828 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html @@ -0,0 +1,166 @@ + + +Freedom Or Power? +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

Freedom or Power?

+ +

+by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard +M. Stallman

+ +
+

The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the +love of ourselves.
+-- William Hazlitt

+
+ +

+In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of +software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are +necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a +community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify +the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a +community.

+ +

+We stand for freedom for programmers as well as for other users. +Most of us are programmers, and we want freedom for ourselves as well +as for you. But each of us uses software written by others, and we +want freedom when using that software, not just when using our own +code. We stand for freedom for all users, whether they program often, +occasionally, or not at all.

+ +

+However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the +“freedom to choose any license you want for software you +write.” We reject this because it is really a form of power, +not a freedom.

+ +

+This oft overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make +decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions +that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we +will fail to uphold real freedom.

+ +

+Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power. Copyright law +today grants software developers that power, so they and only they +choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively small +number of people make the basic software decisions for all users, +typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the +freedoms that define free software, they can't tell what the +software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible +viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being +reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, +they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its +power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck +with it. They can't help each other improve it.

+ +

+Proprietary software developers are often businesses. We in the free +software movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what +happens when a software business has the “freedom” to +impose arbitrary rules on the users of software. Microsoft is an +egregious example of how denying users' freedoms can lead to direct +harm, but it is not the only example. Even when there is no monopoly, +proprietary software harms society. A choice of masters is not +freedom.

+ +

+Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated +on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world +program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software +businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses +software, so software developers now control the way it lives, +does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and +political issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of +choice (for developers only).”

+ +

+If “code is law,” (1) then the real question we face is: who should control the +code you use—you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled +to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the +goal of free software.

+ +

+We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use; +however, that is not what today's law says. Current copyright law places +us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or +not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for +each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government +power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU General Public License is for: +it puts you in control of your usage of the software while protecting you from others who would +like to take control of your decisions.

+ +

+As more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that +they too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms +we stand for, just as more and more users have come to appreciate the +practical value of the free software we have developed.

+ +

Footnotes

+ + William J. Mitchell, +City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn (Cambridge, +Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), p. 111, as quoted by Lawrence Lessig in +Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 (New York, NY: +Basic Books, 2006), p. 5. + +
+

This essay is published +in Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3