diff options
author | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Tong Hui <tonghuix@gmail.com> | 2016-03-25 16:52:03 +0800 |
commit | 5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac (patch) | |
tree | b7d47d7d26bf9cd76ceeae138c71d4a99c7ac662 /docs/free-software-even-more-important.md | |
download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/free-software-even-more-important.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/free-software-even-more-important.md | 341 |
1 files changed, 341 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md b/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6f17e8f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Free Software Is Even More Important Now {#free-software-is-even-more-important-now .chapter} +=========================================== + +Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer +users’ freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than +vice versa. When a program respects users’ freedom and community, we +call it “free software.” + +We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we’re +talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree) programs, +such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as Flash Player, are +available gratis—but that’s a minor detail. Either way, they give the +program’s developer power over the users, power that no one should have. + +Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are both +*malware.* That is, both have functionalities designed to mistreat the +user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware because the +developers’ power corrupts them.[(1)](#FOOT1) With free software, the +users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they +control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and +do what the users’ programs tell them to do). + +With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some +other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the +proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is +unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in +other ways. + +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. + +Users’ control over the program requires four essential +freedoms.[(2)](#FOOT2) @firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip See +<http://gnu.org/help> for ways to help the free software movement. +@medskip @footnoterule @medskip Copyright © 2015 Richard Stallman\ + {A substantially edited version of this article was published on the +[Wired](Wired) web site as “Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than +Ever Before” (Wired, 28 September 2013, +[http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-\ +is-more-important-now-than-ever-before](http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-%3Cbr%3Eis-more-important-now-than-ever-before)). +This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose. +2. The freedom to study the program’s “source code,” and change it, so + the program does your computing as you wish. Programs are written by + programmers in a programming language—like English combined with + algebra—and that form of the program is the “source code.” 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. +3. 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—using it + privately—does not mistreat anyone.) +4. The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, + when you wish. + +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 *collective control* 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. + +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. + +A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you want +(or cease do to 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. + +### The Injustice of Proprietariness {#the-injustice-of-proprietariness .subheading} + +If the users don’t control the program, the program controls the users. +With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or +“owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, +exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an +instrument of unjust power. + +In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) +proprietary programs are designed to spy on the users, restrict them, +censor them, and abuse them.[(3)](#FOOT3) For instance, the operating +system of Apple iThings 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. + +The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things” would turn it +into the “internet of telemarketers”[(4)](#FOOT4) as well as the +“internet of snoopers.” + +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 GNU. Today, +millions of computers run GNU, mainly in the GNU/Linux +combination.[(5)](#FOOT5) + +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. + +### Nonfree Software and SaaSS {#nonfree-software-and-saass .subheading} + +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. + +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. + +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—who does that server +really serve, after all?[(6)](#FOOT6) + +### Primary and Secondary Injustices {#primary-and-secondary-injustices .subheading} + +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. + +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—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. + +Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards the +perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or +“service,” leading in turn to even more people falling under the +company’s thumb. + +All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a public +entity or a school. + +### Free Software and the State {#free-software-and-the-state .subheading} + +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. + +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. + +Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case—against +its developer. And the developer may help others attack. Microsoft shows +Windows bugs to the NSA[(7)](#FOOT7) (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.[(8)](#FOOT8) Do you want the NSA to break into your +government’s computers? + +### Free Software and Education {#free-software-and-education .subheading} + +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. + +They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping other +people. Each class should have this rule: “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—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 it.” + +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.[(9)](#FOOT9) + +### Free Software: More Than “Advantages” {#free-software-more-than-advantages .subheading} + +I’m often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the +word “advantages” 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. + +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 “not supposed to,” is antisocial. + +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 it. + +### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} + +We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win this +control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own or +regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By developing free +software[(10)](#FOOT10) (for those of us who are programmers). By +refusing to develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By spreading +these ideas to others.[(11)](#FOOT11) + +We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how we now +have the free GNU/Linux operating system that anyone—programmer or +not—can use. Join our cause, as a programmer or an activist. Let’s make +all computer users free. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html> for an +evolving list of these threats. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See footnote 1, on @pageref{Proprietary Software}. @end +raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright Marcelo Rinesi, “The Telemarketer Singularity,” +6 August 2015, <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806>. +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “The GNU Project” (@pageref{GNU Project}), for more on +the history of the GNU operating system, and +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, for the “GNU/Linux FAQ.” @end +raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server}) +for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright Sean Gallagher, “NSA Gets Early Access to Zero-Day Data +from Microsoft, Others,” 14 June 2013, +[http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-\ +early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-%3Cbr%3Eearly-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/). +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “Measures Governments Can User to Promote Free +Software” (@pageref{Government}) for our suggested policies. @end +raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/education> for more discussion of the +use of free software in schools. @end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See “How to Choose a License for Your Own Work” +(@pageref{License Recommendations}) for our licensing recommendations. +@end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/help> for the various ways you could +help. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ |