linux-gnu-freedom.html (15902B)
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="essays aboutfs free-open" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>Linux, GNU, and Freedom 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <meta http-equiv="Keywords" 9 content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, freedom, software, power, rights, Richard Stallman, rms, SIGLINUX, Joe Barr" /> 10 <meta http-equiv="Description" content="In this essay, Linux, GNU, and freedom, Richard M. Stallman responds to Joe Barr's account of the FSF's dealings with the Austin Linux users group." /> 11 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/linux-gnu-freedom.translist" --> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 13 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 14 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 15 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 16 <div class="article reduced-width"> 17 <h2>Linux, GNU, and Freedom</h2> 18 19 <address class="byline">by Richard M. Stallman</address> 20 21 <p> 22 Since <a 23 href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190404115541/http://linux.sys-con.com/node/32755">Joe Barr's 24 article</a> criticized my dealings with SIGLINUX, I would like to 25 set the record straight about what actually occurred, and state my 26 reasons.</p> 27 <p> 28 When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, it was a “Linux User 29 Group”; that is, a group for users of the GNU/Linux system 30 which calls the whole system “Linux.” So I replied 31 politely that if they'd like someone from the GNU Project to give a 32 speech for them, they ought to treat the GNU Project right, and call 33 the system “GNU/Linux.” The system is a variant of GNU, 34 and the GNU Project is its principal developer, so social convention 35 says to call it by the name we chose. Unless there are powerful 36 reasons for an exception, I usually decline to give speeches for 37 organizations that won't give GNU proper credit in this way. I 38 respect their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom not to 39 give a speech.</p> 40 <p> 41 Subsequently, Jeff Strunk of SIGLINUX tried to change the group's 42 policy, and asked the FSF to list his group in our page of GNU/Linux 43 user groups. Our webmaster told him that we would not list it under 44 the name “SIGLINUX” because that name implies that the 45 group is about Linux. Strunk proposed to change the name to 46 “SIGFREE,” and our webmaster agreed that would be fine. 47 (Barr's article said we rejected this proposal.) However, the group 48 ultimately decided to stay with “SIGLINUX.”</p> 49 <p> 50 At that point, the matter came to my attention again, and I 51 suggested they consider other possible names. There are many names 52 they could choose that would not call the system 53 “Linux,” and I hope they will come up with one they 54 like. There the matter rests as far as I know.</p> 55 <p> 56 Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an 57 “application of force” comparable with Microsoft's 58 monopoly power? Probably so. Declining an invitation is not 59 coercion, but people who are determined to believe that the entire 60 system is “Linux” sometimes develop amazingly distorted 61 vision. To make that name appear justified, they must see molehills 62 as mountains and mountains as molehills. If you can ignore the 63 facts and believe that Linus Torvalds developed the whole system 64 starting in 1991, or if you can ignore your ordinary principles of 65 fairness and believe that Torvalds should get the sole credit even 66 though he didn't do that, it's a small step to believe that I owe 67 you a speech when you ask.</p> 68 <p> 69 Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating 70 system, and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. 71 The GNU Project says, “Please give our project equal 72 mention,” but Linus says, “Don't give them a share of 73 the credit; call the whole thing after my name alone!” Now 74 envision the mindset of a person who can look at these events and 75 accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes strong prejudice to 76 misjudge so drastically.</p> 77 <p> 78 A person who is that prejudiced can say all sorts of unfair things 79 about the GNU Project and think them justified; his fellows will 80 support him, because they want each other's support in maintaining 81 their prejudice. Dissenters can be reviled; thus, if I decline to 82 participate in an activity under the rubric of “Linux,” 83 they may find that inexcusable, and hold me responsible for the ill 84 will they feel afterwards. When so many people want me to call the 85 system “Linux,” how can I, who merely launched its 86 development, not comply? And forcibly denying them a speech is 87 forcibly making them unhappy. That's coercion, as bad as 88 Microsoft!</p> 89 <p> 90 Now, you might wonder why I don't just duck the issue and avoid all 91 this grief. When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, I could simply have 92 said “No, sorry” and the matter would have ended there. 93 Why didn't I do that? I'm willing to take the risk of being abused 94 personally in order to have a chance of correcting the error that 95 undercuts the GNU Project's efforts.</p> 96 <p> 97 Calling this variant of the GNU system “Linux” plays 98 into the hands of people who choose their software based only on 99 technical advantage, not caring whether it respects their freedom. 100 There are people like Barr, that want their software “free 101 from ideology” and criticize anyone that says freedom matters. 102 There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into 103 use of a nonfree program, and challenge anyone who complains to 104 provide a (technically) better program immediately or shut up. 105 There are people who say that technical decisions should not be 106 “politicized” by consideration of their social 107 consequences.</p> 108 <p> 109 In the 70s, computer users lost the freedoms to redistribute and 110 change software because they didn't value their freedom. Computer 111 users regained these freedoms in the 80s and 90s because a group of 112 idealists, the GNU Project, believed that freedom is what makes a 113 program better, and were willing to work for what we believed in.</p> 114 <p> 115 We have partial freedom today, but our freedom is not secure. It is 116 threatened by the <abbr title="Consumer Broadband and Digital 117 Television Promotion Act">CBDTPA</abbr> 118 (formerly <abbr title="Security Systems Standards and Certification Act">SSSCA</abbr>), 119 by the Broadcast “Protection” Discussion Group 120 (see <a href="https://www.eff.org/">www.eff.org</a>) which 121 proposes to prohibit free software to access digital TV broadcasts, 122 by software patents (Europe is now considering whether to have 123 software patents), by Microsoft nondisclosure agreements for vital 124 protocols, and by everyone who tempts us with a nonfree program 125 that is “better” (technically) than available free 126 programs. We can lose our freedom again just as we lost it the 127 first time, if we don't care enough to protect it.</p> 128 <p> 129 Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, 130 how much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus 131 Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, “Value your 132 freedom!” Joe Barr says, “Choose between nonfree and 133 free programs on technical grounds alone!” If people credit 134 Torvalds as the main developer of the GNU/Linux system, that's not 135 just inaccurate, it also makes his message more 136 influential—and that message says, “Nonfree software is 137 OK; I use it and develop it myself.” If they recognize our 138 role, they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them 139 is, “This system exists because of people who care about 140 freedom. Join us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve 141 it.” 142 See <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">The GNU Project</a> 143 for the history.</p> 144 <p> 145 When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond 146 with <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"> silly excuses and straw men</a>. 147 But we probably haven't lost 148 anything, because they were probably unfriendly to begin with. 149 Meanwhile, other people recognize the reasons I give, and use that 150 name. By doing so, they help make other people aware of why the 151 GNU/Linux system really exists, and that increases our ability to 152 spread the idea that freedom is an important value.</p> 153 <p> 154 This is why I keep butting my head against bias, calumny, and grief. 155 They hurt my feelings, but when successful, this effort helps the GNU 156 Project campaign for freedom.</p> 157 <p> 158 Since this came up in the context of Linux (the kernel) and Bitkeeper, 159 the nonfree version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd 160 like to address that issue as well.</p> 161 162 <h3 id="bitkeeper">Bitkeeper issue</h3> 163 <p> 164 (See the <a href="#update">update</a> below.)</p> 165 <p> 166 The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the 167 free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track 168 patches to Linux can only do it by installing that nonfree program. 169 There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done 170 this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok 171 to use nonfree software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive 172 dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What 173 can be done about this?</p> 174 <p> 175 One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources, 176 using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to 177 load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to 178 access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS. 179 That update process could run automatically and frequently.</p> 180 <p> 181 The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our 182 machines. We have no nonfree systems or applications on them now, 183 and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this 184 repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to 185 have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way 186 to do it using free software.</p> 187 <p> 188 The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with 189 nonfree software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device 190 drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to 191 be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A 192 few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a 193 substantial program in binary is another.</p> 194 <p> 195 The presence of these binary-only programs in “source” 196 files of Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question 197 whether Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL 198 requires “complete corresponding source code,” and a 199 sequence of integers is not the source code. By the same token, 200 adding such a binary to the Linux sources violates the GPL.</p> 201 <p> 202 The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs 203 into separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when 204 completed it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a 205 “free Linux” version that doesn't have the nonfree 206 firmware files. That by itself won't do much good if most people 207 use the nonfree “official” version of Linux. That may 208 well occur, because on many platforms the free version won't run 209 without the nonfree firmware. The “free Linux” project 210 will have to figure out what the firmware does and write source code 211 for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever embedded 212 processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less 213 daunting if we had done it little by little over the years, rather 214 than letting it mount up. In recruiting people to do this job, we 215 will have to overcome the idea, spread by some Linux developers, 216 that the job is not necessary.</p> 217 <p> 218 Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free 219 software, yet its current version is partially nonfree. How did 220 this happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, 221 reflects the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person 222 who thinks that “technically better” is more important 223 than freedom.</p> 224 <p> 225 Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. 226 “Don't bother us with politics,” respond those who don't 227 want to learn.</p> 228 <div class="column-limit"></div> 229 230 <p id="update"> 231 <strong>Update:</strong> Since 2005, BitKeeper 232 is no longer used to manage the Linux kernel source tree. See the 233 article, <a href="/philosophy/mcvoy.html">Thank You, Larry 234 McVoy</a>. The Linux sources still contain nonfree firmware blobs, 235 but as of January 2008, 236 a <a href="//directory.fsf.org/project/linux"> free version of 237 Linux</a> is now maintained for use in free GNU/Linux 238 distributions.</p> 239 </div> 240 241 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 242 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 243 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 244 <div class="unprintable"> 245 246 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a 247 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a 248 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other 249 corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a 250 href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 251 252 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 253 replace it with the translation of these two: 254 255 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 256 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 257 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 258 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 259 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 260 261 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 262 our web pages, see <a 263 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 264 README</a>. --> 265 Please see the <a 266 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for 267 information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> 268 </div> 269 270 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 271 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 272 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 273 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 274 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 275 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 276 document was modified, or published. 277 278 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 279 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 280 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 281 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 282 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 283 284 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 285 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 286 287 <p>Copyright © 2002, 2021 Richard M. Stallman</p> 288 289 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 290 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 291 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 292 293 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 294 295 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 296 <!-- timestamp start --> 297 $Date: 2021/10/18 16:50:30 $ 298 <!-- timestamp end --> 299 </p> 300 </div> 301 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 302 </body> 303 </html>