1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
|
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural society" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Free Software and (e-)Government - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/second-sight.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Free Software and (e-)Government</h2>
<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></address>
<p>
The UK government has funded the development of software useful for
e-government, and now doesn't know what to do with it. Someone had the
bright idea to hand it over to local councils, inviting them to turn
themselves into software companies.
</p>
<p>
The public have already paid to develop this software. Isn't it absurd
to make them pay, now, for permission to use it? Isn't it absurd to
restrict what they can do with it? Alas, such absurdity is not
unusual; it is standard practice for governments to deliver publicly
funded software into private hands, to companies that make the
public—and even the government—beg for permission to use it
afterwards.
</p>
<p>
Even worse, they impose frustrating restrictions on the users, denying
them access to the software's source code, the plans that a programmer
can read and understand and change. All the users get is an
executable, a “black box,” so that they cannot adapt it,
understand it or even verify what it does.
</p>
<p>
There is a sensible motive for this senseless policy. The motive is to
make sure that someone cares for the software, fixing the problems
that inevitably appear and adapting it to new needs. People used to
believe that having some company control all use of the software, and
keep all users under its thumb, was the only way to do this.
</p>
<p>
Today, we know another way: free software (also known
as <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> open
source</a> or Foss). Free software means the users are free to use
this software, redistribute it, study it, or even extend it to do more
jobs.
</p>
<p>
The word “free” refers to freedom, not price; think
“free speech,” not “free beer.” When there are
users that value support and are willing to pay for it, free software
means a free market for support, instead of a monopoly. Free software
also offers government agencies a way to fulfil their responsibility
to maintain sovereign control over the state's computers, and not let
that control fall into private hands.
</p>
<p>
Since 1984, groups of volunteers have developed and maintained
powerful and useful free programs—a few at first, then entire
operating systems such as GNU/Linux and BSD. Today,
the <a href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page">Free Software Directory</a>
lists almost 4,000 free software packages. The UK government has already
decided to increase its use of free software; here is a perfect opportunity to
both use it and contribute.
</p>
<p>
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should make the e-government
programs free software, set up a site to host their development, and
hire a handful of people to oversee the work. Then governments around
the world will begin to use this software, fix it, extend it, and
contribute the improvements back.
</p>
<p>
The whole world will benefit, and all the users will admire Britain's
leadership.
</p>
<div class="infobox">
<hr />
<p>This article originally appeared in <cite>The Guardian</cite>,
March 3, 2005, under the title “Second Sight.”</p>
</div>
</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 2005, 2021 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/10/01 17:02:54 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
|
