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 --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html | 224 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 224 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9be2e9e --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html @@ -0,0 +1,224 @@ + + +Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism

+ +

+by Richard Stallman

+ +

+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.

+ +

+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.

+

+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.

+

+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 paid.” +

+ +

+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.

+

+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.

+

+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, MCC, starting from the 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.

+

+Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front +end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o 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.

+

+Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues +to bring us more free software.

+

+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 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.

+

+The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or 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.”

+

+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.

+

+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.”

+

+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.

+

+What we can 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.

+

+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.

+

+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 X Consortium (and its +successor, the 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 X11R6.4 nonfree software, those +of us who had resisted that pressure were glad that we did.

+

+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 possible.

+

+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.”

+

+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.

+ +
+

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

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