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 --- .../en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 191 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a8912d4 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ + + +Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +

Free software means software controlled by its users, rather than the +reverse. Specifically, it means the software comes with four essential freedoms +that software users deserve. At the head of the list is freedom 0, +the freedom to run the program as you wish, in order to do what you wish.

+ +

Some developers propose to place usage restrictions in software +licenses to ban using the program for certain purposes, but that would +be a disastrous path. This article explains why freedom 0 must not +be limited. Conditions to limit the use of a program would achieve +little of their aims, but could wreck the free software community.

+ +

First of all, let's be clear what freedom 0 means. It means that +the distribution of the software does not restrict how you use it. +This doesn't make you exempt from laws. For instance, fraud is a +crime in the US—a law which I think is right and proper. +Whatever the free software license says, using a free program to carry +out your fraud won't shield you from prosecution.

+ +

A license condition against fraud would be superfluous in a country +where fraud is a crime. But why not a condition against using it for +torture, a practice that states frequently condone when carried out by +the “security forces”?

+ +

A condition against torture would not work, because enforcement of any +free software license is done through the state. A state that wants +to carry out torture will ignore the license. When victims of US +torture try suing the US government, courts dismiss the cases on the +grounds that their treatment is a national security secret. If a +software developer tried to sue the US government for using a program +for torture against the conditions of its license, that suit would be +dismissed too. In general, states are clever at making legal excuses +for whatever terrible things they want to do. Businesses with powerful +lobbies can do it too.

+ +

What if the condition were against some specialized private activity? +For instance, PETA proposed a license that would forbid use of the +software to cause pain to animals with a spinal column. Or there +might be a condition against using a certain program to make or +publish drawings of Mohammad. Or against its use in experiments with +embryonic stem cells. Or against using it to make unauthorized copies +of musical recordings.

+ +

It is not clear these would be enforcible. Free software licenses are +based on copyright law, and trying to impose usage conditions that way +is stretching what copyright law permits, stretching it in a dangerous +way. Would you like books to carry license conditions about how you +can use the information in them?

+ +

What if such conditions are legally enforcible—would that be good?

+ +

The fact is, people have very different ethical ideas about the +activities that might be done using software. I happen to think those +four unusual activities are legitimate and should not be forbidden. +In particular I support the use of software for medical experiments on +animals, and for processing meat. I defend the human rights of animal +right activists but I don't agree with them; I would not want PETA to +get its way in restricting the use of software.

+ +

Since I am not a pacifist, I would also disagree with a “no military +use” provision. I condemn wars of aggression but I don't condemn +fighting back. In fact, I have supported efforts to convince various +armies to switch to free software, since they can check it for back +doors and surveillance features that could imperil national security.

+ +

Since I am not against business in general, I would oppose a +restriction against commercial use. A system that we could use only +for recreation, hobbies and school is off limits to much of what we do +with computers.

+ +

I've stated some of my views about other political issues, about +activities that are or aren't unjust. Your views might differ, and +that's precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage +restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people +would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would +be programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only +for pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to +kosher foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program +allowing use for processing any vegetable except spinach, while a +Popeye fan might allow use only for spinach. There would be music +programs allowed only for rap music, and others allowed only for +classical music.

+ +

The result would be a system that you could not count on for any +purpose. For each task you wish to do, you'd have to check lots of +licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that +task.

+ +

How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use +proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in +free software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. +Trying to stop users from doing something through usage restrictions +in free software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a +long, soft, straight piece of spaghetti.

+ +

+It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software +developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine +selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that +would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for +general software. If you make something that is generally useful, +like a pen, people will use it to write all sorts of things, even +horrible things such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must +not have the power to control people's activities through their pens. +It is the same for a text editor, compiler or kernel.

+ +

You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used +for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write +programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, +and you have no obligation to write any features that might lend +themselves to activities you disapprove of.

+ +

The conclusion is clear: a program must not restrict what jobs its +users do with it. Freedom 0 must be complete. We need to stop +torture, but we can't do it through software licenses. The proper job +of software licenses is to establish and protect users' freedom.

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