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/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md | |
download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md | 147 |
1 files changed, 147 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md b/docs/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..57c6dc1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.md @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Programs Must Not Limit the Freedom to Run Them {#programs-must-not-limit-thefreedomtorunthem .chapter} +================================================== + +Free software means software controlled by its users, rather than the +reverse. Specifically, it means the software comes with four essential +freedoms that software users deserve.[(1)](#FOOT1) At the head of the +list is freedom zero, the freedom to run the program as you wish, in +order to do what you wish. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2012 Free +Software Foundation, Inc.\ + This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2012. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Some developers propose to place usage restrictions in software licenses +to ban using the program for certain purposes, but that would be a +disastrous path. This article explains why freedom zero must not be +limited. Conditions to limit the use of a program would achieve little +of their aims, but could wreck the free software community. + +First of all, let’s be clear what freedom zero means. It means that the +distribution of the software does not restrict how you use it. This +doesn’t make you exempt from laws. For instance, fraud is a crime in the +US—a law which I think is right and proper. Whatever the free software +license says, using a free program to carry out your fraud won’t shield +you from prosecution. + +A license condition against fraud would be superfluous in a country +where fraud is a crime. But why not a condition against using it for +torture, a practice that states frequently condone when carried out by +the “security forces”? + +A condition against torture would not work, because enforcement of any +free software license is done through the state. A state that wants to +carry out torture will ignore the license. When victims of US torture +try suing the US government, courts dismiss the cases on the grounds +that their treatment is a national security secret. If a software +developer tried to sue the US government for using a program for torture +against the conditions of its license, that suit would be dismissed too. +In general, states are clever at making legal excuses for whatever +terrible things they want to do. Businesses with powerful lobbies can do +it too. + +What if the condition were against some specialized private activity? +For instance, PETA proposed a license that would forbid use of the +software to cause pain to animals with a spinal column. Or there might +be a condition against using a certain program to make or publish +drawings of Mohammad. Or against its use in experiments with embryonic +stem cells. Or against using it to make unauthorized copies of musical +recordings. + +It is not clear these would be enforcible. Free software licenses are +based on copyright law, and trying to impose usage conditions that way +is stretching what copyright law permits, stretching it in a dangerous +way. Would you like books to carry license conditions about how you can +use the information in them? + +What if such conditions are legally enforcible—would that be good? + +The fact is, people have very different ethical ideas about the +activities that might be done using software. I happen to think those +four unusual activities are legitimate and should not be forbidden. In +particular I support the use of software for medical experiments on +animals, and for processing meat. I defend the human rights of animal +right activists but I don’t agree with them; I would not want PETA to +get its way in restricting the use of software. + +Since I am not a pacifist, I would also disagree with a “no military +use” provision. I condemn wars of aggression but I don’t condemn +fighting back. In fact, I have supported efforts to convince various +armies to switch to free software, since they can check it for back +doors and surveillance features that could imperil national security. + +Since I am not against business in general, I would oppose a restriction +against commercial use. A system that we could use only for recreation, +hobbies and school is off limits to much of what we do with computers. + +I’ve stated some of my views about other political issues, about +activities that are or aren’t unjust. Your views might differ, and +that’s precisely the point. If we accepted programs with usage +restrictions as part of a free operating system such as GNU, people +would come up with lots of different usage restrictions. There would be +programs banned for use in meat processing, programs banned only for +pigs, programs banned only for cows, and programs limited to kosher +foods. Someone who hates spinach might write a program allowing use for +processing any vegetable except spinach, while a Popeye fan might allow +use only for spinach. There would be music programs allowed only for rap +music, and others allowed only for classical music. + +The result would be a system that you could not count on for any +purpose. For each task you wish to do, you’d have to check lots of +licenses to see which parts of your system are off limits for that task. + +How would users respond to that? I think most of them would use +proprietary systems. Allowing any usage restrictions whatsoever in free +software would mainly push users towards nonfree software. Trying to +stop users from doing something through usage restrictions in free +software is as ineffective as pushing on an object through a long, soft, +straight piece of spaghetti. + +It is worse than ineffective; it is wrong too, because software +developers should not exercise such power over what users do. Imagine +selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them; that +would be noisome, and we should not stand for it. Likewise for general +software. If you make something that is generally useful, like a pen, +people will use it to write all sorts of things, even horrible things +such as orders to torture a dissident; but you must not have the power +to control people’s activities through their pens. It is the same for a +text editor, compiler or kernel. + +You do have an opportunity to determine what your software can be used +for: when you decide what functionality to implement. You can write +programs that lend themselves mainly to uses you think are positive, and +you have no obligation to write any features that might lend themselves +to activities you disapprove of. + +The conclusion is clear: a program must not restrict what jobs its users +do with it. Freedom 0 must be complete. We need to stop torture, but we +can’t do it through software licenses. The proper job of software +licenses is to establish and protect users’ freedom. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “What Is Free Software?” (@pageref{Definition}) for the +full definition of free software. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ |