greve-clown.html (19290B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> 5 <title>History and Philosophy of the GNU Project 6 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 7 <!-- top-addendum is disabled because the original text was written in German 8 rather than in English, which is clearly stated in the article itself --> 9 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/greve-clown.translist" --> 11 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 12 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 13 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 14 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 15 <div class="article reduced-width"> 16 <h2>History and Philosophy of the GNU Project</h2> 17 18 <address class="byline">Georg C. F. Greve 19 <a href="mailto:greve@gnu.org"><greve@gnu.org></a></address> 20 21 <div class="infobox"> 22 <p>Translation of a speech that was given in German 23 at the CLOWN (Cluster of Working Nodes— 24 a 512-node cluster project of Debian GNU/Linux machines) in the 25 University of Paderborn, Germany, on December 5th, 1998.</p> 26 27 <p>The 28 <a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">German original</a> 29 is also available. Reading the original is recommended.</p> 30 </div> 31 <hr class="thin" /> 32 33 <div class="introduction" role="complementary"> 34 <p><em> 35 Author's note: In translating this speech, I have tried to stay as close as 36 possible to the original speech that I have given in German. Breaking 37 up the German structures and turning them into reasonable English has 38 been quite some work, and I would like to thank my roommate Doug 39 Chapin, a good friend and native American, who helped me with some 40 phrases and words. The translation will never hold the same emotions 41 and implications, but I think we got very close… 42 </em></p> 43 </div> 44 <p> 45 During the preparation of this speech, I have read several documents 46 and spoken to a lot of people. In doing so, I realized that even people 47 whose jobs have been created more or less directly by the GNU Project 48 did not know its true meaning. In the overall rush we are 49 experiencing at the moment, it seems that a basic awareness of the 50 roots has been lost. Tonight I hope I'll be able to uncover some of 51 those roots again.</p> 52 53 <p> 54 The origin lies somewhere in the transition from the 70's to the 80's, 55 when the software industry became what we accept so willingly 56 today. In the initial competition, some firms took to hoarding code as 57 a survival strategy. While attempting to support this behavior's 58 legality, they created phrases like “software piracy” 59 because they suggest that something is lost when software is 60 copied. People were forced to yield to licenses that bound them, to 61 make sure that no one else had access to these programs.</p> 62 63 <p> 64 When a friend asked you whether he could copy a program from you, you 65 immediately faced a dilemma. There are no disadvantages for you in 66 copying the program, and it doesn't deteriorate during the copying 67 process. It would be more restrictive if he asked you to pass 68 the salt, since you can't both use it at the same time. The politics 69 of the companies forced you to <em>choose</em> between legality and 70 friendship.</p> 71 72 <p> 73 A lot of people were upset about this, and most of them copied the 74 program anyway—very often using lame excuses that were mostly 75 aimed at calming their own troubled consciousness (induced by the 76 firms' choice of words). The absolute hit was probably “If I 77 would use it more often I would pay it,” a phrase that 78 probably everyone caught himself using if he ever had to rely on 79 proprietary software.</p> 80 81 <p> 82 One man found this situation unbearable. Used to the early days, the 83 (as he says himself) “paradise,” where freedom and 84 responsible use of the possibilities determined the situation, Richard 85 Stallman envisioned the concept of a completely free system. Very 86 quickly it became clear that this system would be Unix-compatible and 87 it was baptized—recursive acronyms were very popular back 88 then—GNU, which means “GNU's Not Unix.” 89 Stallman gathered some people who shared his fascination with a free 90 system, and founded the GNU Free Software Foundation, of which he is 91 still the president today.</p> 92 93 <p> 94 Since first of all a Unix system requires a large set of components, 95 it became clear that these were the first step towards a 96 completely free system. The GNU FSF worked on implementing them, and 97 by the beginning of the 90's the GNU system was complete (with the 98 exception of the kernel). 99 The GNU kernel—project name “Hurd”—has an 100 extremely ambitious layout that proved to be very slow and clumsy in 101 development. Fortunately, at this point Linus Torvalds' first Linux 102 kernel was in the test phase, and when he saw the work already done by 103 the GNU FSF, he put his kernel under the GNU GPL and made it the kernel 104 of the GNU system.</p> 105 106 <p> 107 There is no need to tell the rest of the story since most of us have 108 experienced it themselves.</p> 109 110 <p> 111 A little earlier I said that Richard Stallman envisioned the concept 112 of free software. What I didn't tell you about was the philosophy 113 that stands behind it.</p> 114 115 <p> 116 The word “free” in “free software” does not refer to price, 117 but to freedom. This is no unproblematic topic, and 118 recently some of the visionaries of the movement (like Eric Raymond) 119 have begun to talk about “open source” because 120 “freedom” has an uneasy sound to it for most 121 people. Freedom rings of “making world a better place,” and 122 insecurity. It rings of change, and change frightens many people. To 123 numb this fear, other licenses for free software have been invented in 124 order to make the concept digestible for more people and to avoid 125 scaring the industry.</p> 126 127 <p> 128 That is the reason why the GNU Project dislikes the term “open 129 source.” We think it makes more sense to take away people's 130 fears of the idea instead of blurring the concept. Only if users and 131 firms are aware of the importance of freedom can we avoid falling back 132 into old patterns.</p> 133 134 <p> 135 The philosophy of the GNU Project says that <em>everyone</em> shall have 136 the granted right to use a program, to copy it, and to change it to 137 make it fit his or her needs. The <em>only</em> restriction the GNU 138 General Public License makes, is that <em>NO ONE</em> has the right to 139 take away this freedom from anyone else.</p> 140 141 <p> 142 When an author puts his code under the GNU GPL, the freedom is an 143 inseparable part of his program. Of course, this is a thorn in the 144 side of a lot of business'es eyes because it stops them from taking the 145 code, modifying it, and then selling it as a proprietary program. As 146 long as there are people who try to live the dream of instant wealth, 147 it is this freedom that stops firms like Microsoft from corrupting the 148 future development of our system.</p> 149 150 <p> 151 The most used argument against the GNU philosophy is probably that 152 software is the “intellectual property” of the programmer, 153 and it is only right if he can decide the price for which the program 154 is distributed. This argument is easy to understand for everyone, since 155 it is exactly what we have been told to believe during the last 20 156 years.</p> 157 158 <p> 159 Reality is a little different, though. Private programmers who can 160 live off selling self-written software are the exception. Usually they 161 give their rights to the firm they work at, and this firm earns the 162 money by restricting access to that program. Effectively, the 163 firm has the rights for that program and decides it's price, 164 not the programmer.</p> 165 166 <p> 167 A lawyer who invents an especially brilliant strategy has no right to 168 claim it as his “intellectual property.” The method is 169 freely available to anyone. Why do we so willingly accept the concept 170 that every line of code—no matter how poorly written or 171 uninspired it may be—is so unique and incredibly personal? The 172 zeal for control has taken over in a way that even human genes are 173 subject to patents… although usually not by the people who 174 “use” them. Should really <em>everything</em> be allowed to 175 be patented and licensed?</p> 176 177 <p> 178 This is the question that is one of the core thoughts of the GNU 179 Project. Let us just imagine there would be no such concept as 180 patented software, or patenting software would be unusual because 181 everyone published his programs under the GNU GPL.</p> 182 183 <p> 184 Solutions for standard problems that had to be solved over and over 185 again can be accessed easily. No one has to waste his time ever again 186 to work on the same problem dozens of times—programmers could 187 search for new ways and approach new problems. If a group of users 188 needs a certain feature in a program, they just hire a programmer and 189 let him implement it. Freed of the limitations of licenses and money, 190 only two criteria would determine the development of programs: demand 191 and quality.</p> 192 193 <p> 194 Speaking of quality—nowadays more and more firms realize that 195 allowing the users to access the source code gives them a huge 196 advantage. To say it in a simple way: more eyes can see 197 more. Solutions that are unimaginable for one person are painfully 198 obvious for someone else. Due to this advantage, free software is very 199 often so much better than its proprietary counterpart. The train of 200 thought that now appears to be establishing itself within some firms 201 is to give users access to the source code but not grant any other 202 rights. Improvements are obediently being sent back to the firm, which 203 advances its product with them. Basically a gigantic gratis 204 development division. If we do not pay attention to these 205 things <em>now</em>, it might happen that in 5 years we will have to pay 206 for a version that has been produced by applying our own patch.</p> 207 208 <p> 209 The concept of software as “intellectual property” carries 210 the seed of doom inside itself (please forgive me for the pathos 211 here). As long as we accept this concept, we accept the danger that 212 another firm will attempt to take control. Microsoft is 213 <em>not</em> evil incarnated, as some people seem to perceive. Microsoft 214 is <em>the natural consequence</em> of the widely accepted system.</p> 215 216 <p> 217 The fear of sawing the branch you're sitting on is also commonly 218 spread, but completely irrational. Better programs lead to more users 219 that have other needs and new ideas, creating more demand. The 220 structure will change to fit the new situation but work will increase 221 rather than decrease, and it will become less routine, hence 222 more interesting.</p> 223 224 <p> 225 The last common fear that remains is the fear over lack of 226 recognition. Well, the respect held for the frontmen of the different 227 philosophies speaks for itself. I on my part would prefer to be as 228 respected as Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman than to have the 229 reputation of Bill Gates.</p> 230 231 <p> 232 Admittedly, this does sound like bettering the world and idealism, but 233 a lot of the really great ideas were driven by the wish to make the 234 world a little better.</p> 235 236 <p> 237 And to settle one point very clearly: no, the GNU Project is not 238 against capitalism or firms in general, and it is not against software 239 firms in particular. We do not want to diminish the potential for 240 profit, quite the contrary. Every firm is being told to make 241 as much money as they can off the sale of software, documentation 242 and service—as long as they stick to the basic principles of 243 Free Software. 244 The more these firms earn, the more they can invest into the 245 development of new software. We do not want to destroy the market, we 246 just want to fit it to the times.</p> 247 248 <p> 249 One short note about the basic principles: of course free software 250 also requires free documentation. It doesn't make any sense to free 251 the successor of the book—software—while accepting control 252 of the direct digital equivalent. Free documentation is as important 253 as free software itself.</p> 254 255 <p> 256 Maybe someone discarded my statement about seeking to “fit the 257 market to the times” as a rhetorical statement, but it is an 258 important point in the GNU Philosophy: 259 the time when software was only relevant for a few freaks and some 260 firms is long gone. Nowadays, software is the pathway to information. A 261 system that blocks the pathways to information, and in doing so the 262 access to information itself, <em>must</em> be reconsidered.</p> 263 264 <p> 265 When Eric Raymond published the so called “Halloween 266 Document,” it triggered emotions from euphoria to paranoia. For 267 those of you who did not read it: it is a Microsoft internal study in 268 which the strengths and weaknesses of free software in general, and 269 Linux in particular, are analyzed. The author basically concluded that 270 Microsoft has two possibilities to counter the threat.</p> 271 272 <p> 273 The first is the creation of new or modification of old protocols, 274 documenting them only poorly or not at all, so that only Windows-based 275 machines will have a working implementation.</p> 276 277 <p> 278 One example of this tactic is the protocol used by HP 279 “Cxi” printers, which have entered the market as extremely 280 cheap “Windows-Printers.” The specifications have only 281 been given to Microsoft, so these printers are not usable by any other 282 system.</p> 283 284 <p> 285 I have been told by a “professionally trained” computer 286 salesperson that the “for Windows” sticker means the 287 printer needs a very special kind of RAM, which only Windows machines 288 have; this is why it cannot be used under Linux. Something like 289 this confuses the typical user, which brings me directly to the second 290 described tactic.</p> 291 292 <p> 293 These tactics are usually gathered under the acronym “FUD” 294 (Fear Uncertainty Doubt), and were used by IBM long before Microsoft 295 uncovered them. The idea is clear: if you make someone uncertain 296 enough, he or she will not dare make <em>any</em> decision, 297 effectively remaining in his or her current position. That is the 298 thought.</p> 299 300 <p> 301 For all times, education has been the arch-enemy of superstition. 302 We must not allow education to be hindered by allowing ourselves to 303 become split.</p> 304 305 <p> 306 The most recognizable split in the recent history has been the 307 already noted distinction between “open source” and 308 “free software.” Telling both concepts apart is not an 309 easy task, even for most insiders, and it is only understandable if 310 viewed in a historical context. Since this is a central point, I'd like 311 to say a few words about it.</p> 312 313 <p> 314 With the completion of the GNU system with the Linux kernel, there was 315 suddenly a complete, powerful, free system available. This inevitably 316 had to raise the public's attention sooner or later.</p> 317 318 <p> 319 When this attention came, a lot of firms were disconcerted by the word 320 “free.” The first association was “no money,” 321 which immediately meant “no profit” for them. When people 322 then tried to tell them that “free” truly stands for 323 “freedom,” they were completely shaken.</p> 324 325 <p> 326 Infected by this insecurity and doubt, the idea arose to avoid words 327 like “free” and “freedom” at all costs. The 328 term “open source” was born.</p> 329 330 <p> 331 Admittedly it is easier to sell the idea if you use the term 332 “open source” instead of “free 333 software.” 334 But the consequence is that the “newbies” have no 335 knowledge or understanding of the original idea. This splits the 336 movement, and leads to incredibly unproductive trench wars, which waste a 337 huge amount of creative energy.</p> 338 339 <p> 340 A larger interested audience does not mean we should talk less about 341 the underlying philosophy. Quite the contrary: the more people and 342 firms do not understand that this freedom is also in their interest, 343 the more we need to talk about it. The freedom of software offers a 344 huge potential for all of us—firms and users.</p> 345 346 <p> 347 The plan is not to remove capitalism or destroy firms. We want to 348 change the understanding of software for the benefit of all 349 participants, to fit the needs of the 21th century. This is the core of 350 the GNU Project.</p> 351 352 <p> 353 Each of us can do his share—be it in form of a program or 354 documentation, or just by spreading the word that there is another way 355 of handling things.</p> 356 357 <p> 358 It is crucial to explain to the firms that free software is <em>not a 359 threat</em>, but an opportunity. Of course this doesn't happen 360 overnight, but when all participants realize the possibilities and 361 perspectives, all of us will win. So, if you are working in the 362 software business, make yourself at home with the topic, talk about it 363 with friends and colleagues. And please refrain from trying to 364 “missionize” them—I know most of us have this 365 tendency—the arguments speak for themselves. Give them the time and 366 peace to think it over, and to befriend themselves with the 367 concept. Show them that the concept of freedom is nothing to be 368 feared.</p> 369 370 <p> 371 I hope I was able to convey the philosophy or at least stimulate 372 consideration of some new ideas. If you have questions or would like 373 to discuss some things, I'll be here all night and all questions are 374 welcome. I wish everyone a very interesting night. Thank you.</p> 375 </div> 376 377 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 378 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 379 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 380 <div class="unprintable"> 381 382 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 383 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 384 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 385 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 386 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 387 388 <p>Please send comments on this speech to Georg Greve 389 <a href="mailto:greve@gnu.org"><greve@gnu.org></a>.</p> 390 391 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 392 replace it with the translation of these two: 393 394 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 395 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 396 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 397 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 398 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 399 400 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 401 our web pages, see <a 402 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 403 README</a>. --> 404 Please see the <a 405 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 406 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 407 of this article.</p> 408 </div> 409 410 <p>Copyright © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve</p> 411 412 <p id="Permission">Permission is granted to make and distribute 413 verbatim copies of this transcript as long as the copyright and this 414 permission notice appear.</p> 415 416 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 417 418 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 419 <!-- timestamp start --> 420 $Date: 2021/09/14 16:23:30 $ 421 <!-- timestamp end --> 422 </p> 423 </div> 424 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 425 </body> 426 </html>