first

1 files changed, 244 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/government-free-software.md b/docs/government-free-software.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3e2164
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/government-free-software.md
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software {#measures-governments-can-use-to-promote-free-software .chapter}
+========================================================
+
+This article suggests policies for a strong and firm effort to promote
+free software within the state, and to lead the rest of the country
+towards software freedom.
+
+The mission of the state is to organize society for the freedom and
+well-being of the people. One aspect of this mission, in the computing
+field, is to encourage users to adopt free software: software that
+respects the users’ freedom.[(1)](#FOOT1) A proprietary (nonfree)
+program tramples the freedom of those that use it; it is a social
+problem that the state should work to eradicate.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2011–2014 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.\
+ {This article was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2011. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+The state needs to insist on free software in its own computing for the
+sake of its computational sovereignty (the state’s control over its own
+computing). All users deserve control over their computing, but the
+state has a responsibility to the people to maintain control over the
+computing it does on their behalf. Most government activities now depend
+on computing, and its control over those activities depends on its
+control over that computing. Losing this control in an agency whose
+mission is critical undermines national security.
+
+Moving state agencies to free software can also provide secondary
+benefits, such as saving money and encouraging local software-support
+businesses.
+
+In this text, “state entities” refers to all levels of government, and
+means public agencies including schools, public-private partnerships,
+largely state-funded activities such as charter schools, and “private”
+corporations controlled by the state or established with special
+privileges or functions by the state.
+
+### Education {#education .subheading}
+
+The most important policy concerns education, since that shapes the
+future of the country:
+
+-   **Teach only free software**\
+     Educational activities, or at least those of state entities, must
+    teach only free software (thus, they should never lead students to
+    use a nonfree program), and should teach the civic reasons for
+    insisting on free software. To teach a nonfree program is to teach
+    dependence, which is contrary to the mission of the school.
+
+### The State and the Public {#the-state-and-the-public .subheading}
+
+Also crucial are state policies that influence what software individuals
+and organizations use:
+
+-   **Never require nonfree programs**\
+     Laws and public sector practices must be changed so that they never
+    require or pressure individuals or organizations to use a
+    nonfree program. They should also discourage communication and
+    publication practices that imply such consequences (including
+    Digital Restrictions Management[(2)](#FOOT2)).
+-   **Distribute only free software**\
+     Whenever a state entity distributes software to the public,
+    including programs included in or specified by its web pages, it
+    must be distributed as free software, and must be capable of running
+    on a platform containing exclusively free software.
+-   **State web sites**\
+     State entity web sites and network services must be designed so
+    that users can use them, without disadvantage, by means of free
+    software exclusively.
+-   **Free formats and protocols**\
+     State entities must use only file formats and communication
+    protocols that are well supported by free software, preferably with
+    published specifications. (We do not state this in terms of
+    “standards” because it should apply to nonstandardized interfaces as
+    well as standardized ones.) For example, they must not distribute
+    audio or video recordings in formats that require Flash or nonfree
+    codecs, and public libraries must not distribute works with Digital
+    Restrictions Management.
+-   **Untie computers from licenses**\
+     Sale of computers must not require purchase of a proprietary
+    software license. The seller should be required by law to offer the
+    purchaser the option of buying the computer without the proprietary
+    software and without paying the license fee. The imposed payment is
+    a secondary wrong, and should not distract us from the essential
+    injustice of proprietary software, the loss of freedom which results
+    from using it. Nonetheless, the abuse of forcing users to pay for it
+    gives certain proprietary software developers an additional unfair
+    advantage, detrimental to users’ freedom. It is proper for the state
+    to prevent this abuse.
+
+### Computational Sovereignty {#computational-sovereignty .subheading}
+
+Several policies affect the computational sovereignty of the state.
+State entities must maintain control over their computing, not cede
+control to private hands. These points apply to all computers, including
+smartphones.
+
+-   **Migrate to free software**\
+     State entities must migrate to free software, and must not install,
+    or continue using, any nonfree software except under a
+    temporary exception. Only one agency should have the authority to
+    grant these temporary exceptions, and only when shown
+    compelling reasons. This agency’s goal should be to reduce the
+    number of exceptions to zero.
+-   **Develop free IT solutions**\
+     When a state entity pays for development of a computing solution,
+    the contract must require it be delivered as free software, and that
+    it be designed such that one can both run it and develop it on a
+    100-percent-free environment. All contracts must require this, so
+    that if the developer does not comply with these requirements, the
+    work cannot be paid for.
+-   **Choose computers for free software**\
+     When a state entity buys or leases computers, it must choose among
+    the models that come closest, in their class, to being capable of
+    running without any proprietary software. The state should maintain,
+    for each class of computers, a list of the models authorized based
+    on this criterion. Models available to both the public and the state
+    should be preferred to models available only to the state.
+-   **Negotiate with manufacturers**\
+     The state should negotiate actively with manufacturers to bring
+    about the availability in the market (to the state and the public)
+    of suitable hardware products, in all pertinent product areas, that
+    require no proprietary software.
+-   **Unite with other states**\
+     The state should invite other states to negotiate collectively with
+    manufacturers about suitable hardware products. Together they will
+    have more clout.
+
+### Computational Sovereignty II {#computational-sovereignty-ii .subheading}
+
+The computational sovereignty (and security) of the state includes
+control over the computers that do the state’s work. This requires
+avoiding Service as a Software Substitute,[(3)](#FOOT3) unless the
+service is run by a state agency under the same branch of government, as
+well as other practices that diminish the state control over its
+computing. Therefore,
+
+-   **State must control its computers**\
+     Every computer that the state uses must belong to or be leased by
+    the same branch of government that uses it, and that branch must not
+    cede to outsiders the right to decide who has physical access to the
+    computer, who can do maintenance (hardware or software) on it, or
+    what software should be installed in it. If the computer is not
+    portable, then while in use it must be in a physical space of which
+    the state is the occupant (either as owner or as tenant).
+
+### Influence Development {#influence-development .subheading}
+
+State policy affects free and nonfree software development:
+
+-   **Encourage free**\
+     The state should encourage developers to create or enhance free
+    software and make it available to the public, e.g. by tax breaks and
+    other financial incentive. Contrariwise, no such incentives should
+    be granted for development, distribution or use of nonfree software.
+-   **Don’t encourage nonfree**\
+     In particular, proprietary software developers should not be able
+    to “donate” copies to schools and claim a tax write-off for the
+    nominal value of the software. Proprietary software is not
+    legitimate in a school.
+
+### E-Waste {#e-waste .subheading}
+
+Freedom should not imply e-waste:
+
+-   **Replaceable software**\
+     Many modern computers are designed to make it impossible to replace
+    their preloaded software with free software. Thus, the only way to
+    free them is to junk them. This practice is harmful to society.
+
+    Therefore, it should be illegal, or at least substantially
+    discouraged through heavy taxation, to sell, import or distribute in
+    quantity a new computer (that is, not second-hand) or computer-based
+    product for which secrecy about hardware interfaces or intentional
+    restrictions prevent users from developing, installing and using
+    replacements for any and all of the installed software that the
+    manufacturer could upgrade. This would apply, in particular, to any
+    device on which “jailbreaking” is needed to install a different
+    operating system, or in which the interfaces for some peripherals
+    are secret.
+
+### Technological Neutrality {#technological-neutrality .subheading}
+
+With the measures in this article, the state can recover control over
+its computing, and lead the country’s citizens, businesses and
+organizations towards control over their computing. However, some object
+on the grounds that this would violate the “principle” of technological
+neutrality.
+
+The idea of technological neutrality is that the state should not impose
+arbitrary preferences on technical choices. Whether that is a valid
+principle is disputable, but it is limited in any case to issues that
+are merely technical. The measures advocated here address issues of
+ethical, social and political importance, so they are outside the scope
+of *technological* neutrality.[(4)](#FOOT4) Only those who wish to
+subjugate a country would suggest that its government be “neutral” about
+its sovereignty or its citizens’ freedom.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free
+software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See both our anti-DRM campaigns page, at
+[http://defectivebydesign.org/\
+what\_is\_drm](http://defectivebydesign.org/%3Cbr%3Ewhat_is_drm), and
+@pageref{DRM} for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server})
+for more on SaaSS. @end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See my article “Technological Neutrality and Free
+Software,” at [http://www.\
+gnu.org/philosophy/technological-neutrality.html](http://www.%3Cbr%3Egnu.org/philosophy/technological-neutrality.html),
+for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\