taler-merchant-demos

free-software-even-more-important.html (19368B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 
  <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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 Is Even More Important Now</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
 Stallman</a></address>
 
 <p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
 users' freedom&mdash;for users to control the software they
 use, rather than vice versa.  When a program respects users' freedom
 and community, we call it &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>We also sometimes call it &ldquo;libre software&rdquo; to emphasize
 that we're talking about liberty, not price.  Some proprietary
 (nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
 such as the Uber app, are available gratis&mdash;but that's a minor
 detail.  Either way, they give the program's developer power
 over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
 
 <div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
 <hr class="no-display" />
 <p><em>Watch a <a
 href="https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/20140407-geneva-tedx-talk-free-software-free-society/">
 14-min video presentation</a> of these ideas.</em></p>
 <hr class="no-display" />
 </div>
 
 <p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
 both <em>malware</em>.  That is, both have functionalities designed to
 mistreat the user.  Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
 because <a href="/malware">the developers' power
 corrupts them</a>.  That directory lists around 550 different
 malicious functionalities (as of November, 2021), but it is surely just 
 the tip of the iceberg.</p>
 
 <p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
 and collectively.  So they control what their computers do (assuming
 those computers are <a href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
 and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
 
 <p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
 other entity (the developer or &ldquo;owner&rdquo;) controls the
 program.  So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
 its users.  That is unjust in itself; moreover, it tempts the developer 
 to mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
 
 <p>Even when proprietary software isn't downright malicious, its
 developers have an incentive to make it 
 <a href="https://observer.com/2016/06/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Afrom-a-magician-and-googles-design-ethicist/">
 addictive,
 controlling and manipulative</a>.  You can say, as does the author of
 that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
 that, but generally they follow their interests.  If you want this not
 to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its users.</p>
 
 <p>Freedom means having control over your own life.  If you use a
 program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
 your having control over the program.  You deserve to have control
 over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
 something important in your life.</p>
 
 <p>Users' control over the program requires four
 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
 </p>
 
 <div class="important">
 <p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever 
 purpose.</p>
 
 <p>(1) The freedom to study the program's &ldquo;source code,&rdquo;
 and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
 Programs are written by programmers in a programming
 language&mdash;like English combined with algebra&mdash;and that form
 of the program is the &ldquo;source code.&rdquo;  Anyone who knows
 programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
 source code, understand its functioning, and change it too.  When all
 you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
 for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
 understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
 forbiddingly hard.</p>
 
 <p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
 (It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice.  If the program
 is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
 copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
 Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
 however, choosing not to distribute the program&mdash;using it
 privately&mdash;does not mistreat anyone.)</p> 
 
 <p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
 versions, when you wish.</p>
 </div>
 
 <p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
 control over the program.  With the other two freedoms, any group of
 users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
 program.  With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
 If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
 (nonfree), and unjust.</p>
 
 <p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, 
 including recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, 
 reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for 
 displaying paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people 
 to build, and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) 
 objects with a 3D printer.  Since these are not software, the free 
 software movement strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same 
 reasoning applies and leads to the same conclusion: these works should 
 carry the four freedoms.</p>
 
 <p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
 want (or cease to do something you dislike).  Tinkering with software
 may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
 a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
 good way to learn programming.  Even the traditional American pastime
 of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
 software.</p>
 
 <h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
 
 <p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
 users.  With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
 developer or &ldquo;owner&rdquo; of the program, that controls the
 program&mdash;and through it, exercises power over its users.  A
 nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
 
 <p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
 href="/malware">proprietary programs are designed
 to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
 For instance, the operating system of Apple <a
 href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">iThings</a> does all 
 of these, and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips.  
 Windows, mobile phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include 
 a universal back door that allows some company to change the program 
 remotely without asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door 
 that can erase books.</p>
 
 <p>The use of nonfree software in the &ldquo;internet of things&rdquo;
 would turn it into the <a 
 href="https://archive.ieet.org/articles/rinesi20150806.html">
 &ldquo;internet of telemarketers&rdquo;</a> as well as the 
 &ldquo;internet of snoopers.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
 software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
 We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
 href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
 run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
 combination</a>.</p>
 
 <p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those 
 users; however, choosing not to distribute the program does not 
 mistreat anyone.  If you write a program and use it privately, that 
 does no wrong to others.  (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but 
 that's not the same as doing wrong.)  Thus, when we say all software 
 must be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
 but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
 
 <h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
 
 <p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
 people's computing.  Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
 a Software Substitute, or SaaSS.  That means letting someone else's
 server do your own computing tasks.</p>
 
 <p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though 
 they often are).  Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as 
 using a nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place.  
 Take the example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text 
 to the server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, 
 say) and sends the translation back to the user.  Now the job of
 translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
 the user.</p>
 
 <p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing.  It
 requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
 which will be forced to show it to the state as well&mdash;<a
 href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
 does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
 
 <h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
 
 <p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do 
 wrong to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you.  
 For your own sake, you should escape.  It also wrongs others if you 
 make a promise not to share.  It is evil to keep such a promise, and a 
 lesser evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the 
 promise at all.</p>
 
 <p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
 on others to do likewise.  Skype is a clear example: when one person
 uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
 use that software too&mdash;thus both surrender their freedom.
 (Google Hangouts have the same problem.)  It is wrong even to suggest
 using such programs.  We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
 on someone else's computer.</p>
 
 <p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
 the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
 &ldquo;service,&rdquo; leading in turn to even more people falling
 under the company's thumb.</p>
 
 <p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
 public entity or a school.</p>
 
 <h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
 
 <p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves.  When they
 do computing, they do it for the people.  They have a duty to maintain
 full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
 properly for the people.  (This constitutes the computational
 sovereignty of the state.)  They must never allow control over the
 state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
 
 <p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
 not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
 entity other than the state).  And they must not entrust it to a
 service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
 this would be SaaSS.</p>
 
 <p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial
 case&mdash;against its developer.  And the developer may help others attack.
 <a href="https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
 Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
 spying agency) before fixing them.  We do not know whether Apple does
 likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
 If the government of any other country uses such software, it
 endangers national security.  Do you want the NSA to break into your
 government's computers?  See
 our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
 policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
 
 <p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
 future of society through what they teach.  They should teach
 exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
 To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
 against the mission of education.  By training in use of free
 software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
 help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
 
 <p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
 other people.  Each class should have this rule: &ldquo;Students, this
 class is a place where we share our knowledge.  If you bring software
 to class, you may not keep it for yourself.  Rather, you must share
 copies with the rest of the class&mdash;including the program's source
 code, in case someone else wants to learn.  Therefore, bringing
 proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
 engineer&nbsp;it.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
 enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
 want to change it.  This means a bad education.  See more discussion 
 about <a href="/education/education.html">the use of free software in 
 schools</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Free Software: More Than &ldquo;Advantages&rdquo;</h3>
 
 <p>I'm often asked to describe the &ldquo;advantages&rdquo; of free
 software.  But the word &ldquo;advantages&rdquo; is too weak when it
 comes to freedom.  Life without freedom is oppression, and that
 applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives.  We
 must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
 control over the computing we do.  This is the right thing to do, for
 selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
 
 <p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others.  Denying
 people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
 a scheme to oppress them.  In the free software community, we are very
 much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
 work consists of organized cooperation.  If your friend comes to visit
 and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy.  A program which
 stops you from redistributing it, or says you're &ldquo;not supposed
 to,&rdquo; is antisocial.</p>
 
 <p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
 program to other users.  It also includes distributing your changed
 versions to them.  Free software encourages these forms of
 cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them.  It forbids
 redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
 blocks them from making changes.  SaaSS has the same effects: if your
 computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
 else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
 does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change&nbsp;it.</p>
 
 <h3>Conclusion</h3>
 
 <p>We deserve to have control of our own computing. How can we win
 this control?</p>
 
 <ul>
   <li>By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own or 
 regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS.</li>  
 
   <li>By <a
 href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
 software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.)</li> 
 
   <li>By refusing to develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS.</li>  
 
   <li>By <a
 href="/help/help.html">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</li>
 
   <li>By <a
 href="/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.html">saying no and stating our
 reasons</a> when we are invited to run a nonfree program.</li>
 </ul>
 
 <p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
 we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
 anyone&mdash;programmer or not&mdash;can use.  Join our cause, as a
 programmer or an activist.  Let's make all computer users free.</p>
 
 <div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
 <hr class="no-display" />
 <p>
 <a href="/help/help.html">Suggested ways you can help the free software 
 movement</a>
 </p>
 </div>
 
 <div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
 <hr />
 <p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
 href="https://www.wired.com/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before/">
 <cite>Wired</cite></a>.</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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 2013-2015, 2017, 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: 2021/11/05 05:58:21 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>