first

1 files changed, 1000 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/thegnuproject.md b/docs/thegnuproject.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1831b81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/thegnuproject.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1000 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. The GNU Project {#the-gnu-project .chapter}
+==================
+
+### The First Software-Sharing Community {#the-first-software-sharing-community .subheading}
+
+When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, I
+became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many
+years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular community;
+it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as
+cooking. But we did it more than most.
+
+The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the
+Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab’s staff
+hackers[(1)](#FOOT1) had designed and written in assembler language for
+the Digital PDP-10, one of the large computers of the era. As a member
+of this community, an AI Lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve
+this system.
+
+We did not call our software “free software,” because that term did not
+yet exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from another
+university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let
+them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program,
+you could always ask to see the source code, so that you could read it,
+change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new program.
+
+### The Collapse of the Community {#the-collapse-of-the-community .subheading}
+
+The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital
+discontinued the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, elegant and powerful
+in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address spaces that
+were becoming feasible in the 80s. This meant that nearly all of the
+programs composing ITS were obsolete.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1998, 2001,
+2002, 2005–2008, 2010 Richard Stallman\
+ {The original version of this essay was published in Open Sources:
+Voices from the Open Source Revolution, by Chris DiBona and others
+(Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, 1999), under the title “The GNU Operating
+System and the Free Software Movement.” Though I was never a supporter
+of “open source,” I contributed this article anyway, so that the ideas
+of the free software movement would not be entirely absent from that
+book. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. In
+1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of the
+hackers from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable to
+maintain itself. (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these
+events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its
+prime.) When the AI Lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators
+decided to use Digital’s nonfree timesharing system instead of ITS.
+
+The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had their
+own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you had to
+sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.
+
+This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not to
+help your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule made
+by the owners of proprietary software was, “If you share with your
+neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make
+them.”
+
+The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system that
+says you are not allowed to share or change software—is antisocial, that
+it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise to some
+readers. But what else could we say about a system based on dividing the
+public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the idea surprising
+may have taken the proprietary software social system as a given, or
+judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software businesses.
+Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince people that
+there is only one way to look at the issue.
+
+When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their “rights” or
+“stopping piracy,”[(2)](#FOOT2) what they actually *say* is secondary.
+The real message of these statements is in the unstated assumptions they
+take for granted, which the public is asked to accept without
+examination. Let’s therefore examine them.
+
+One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural
+right to own software and thus have power over all its users. (If this
+were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to the
+public, we could not object.) Interestingly, the US Constitution and
+legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right, but
+an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users’ natural
+right to copy.
+
+Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+software is what jobs it allows you to do—that we computer users should
+not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.
+
+A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would
+never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not
+offer a company power over the users of the program. This assumption may
+have seemed plausible, before the free software movement demonstrated
+that we can make plenty of useful software without putting chains on it.
+
+If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues based
+on ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first, we
+arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be free to
+modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because
+helping other people is the basis of society.
+
+There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning behind
+this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the articles “Why Software
+Should Not Have Owners,” at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html>,
+and “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” (@pageref{More Important
+Now}).
+
+### A Stark Moral Choice {#a-stark-moral-choice .subheading}
+
+With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. Instead, I
+faced a stark moral choice.
+
+The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing
+nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker.
+Most likely I would also be developing software that was released under
+nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other people to
+betray their fellows too. I could have made money this way, and perhaps
+amused myself writing code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I
+would look back on years of building walls to divide people, and feel I
+had spent my life making the world a worse place.
+
+I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure
+agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI Lab the source
+code for the control program for our printer. (The lack of certain
+features in this program made use of the printer extremely frustrating.)
+So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure agreements were innocent.
+I was very angry when he refused to share with us; I could not turn
+around and do the same thing to everyone else.
+
+Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the
+computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they would
+still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and restricting
+computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.
+
+So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the good.
+I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could write, so
+as to make a community possible once again?
+
+The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system.
+That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an
+operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run
+the computer at all. With a free operating system, we could again have a
+community of cooperating hackers—and invite anyone to join. And anyone
+would be able to use a computer without starting out by conspiring to
+deprive his or her friends.
+
+As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job.
+So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
+was elected to do the job. I chose to make the system compatible with
+Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
+switch to it. The name GNU was chosen, following a hacker tradition, as
+a recursive acronym for “GNU’s Not Unix.”
+
+An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run
+other programs. In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the name
+included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters,
+debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more. ITS had them, Multics
+had them, VMS had them, and Unix had them. The GNU operating system
+would include them too.
+
+Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel:[(3)](#FOOT3) @medskip
+
+> If I am not for myself, who will be for me?\
+>  If I am only for myself, what am I?\
+>  If not now, when?\
+
+@smallskip The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar
+spirit.
+
+### Free as in Freedom {#free-as-in-freedom .subheading}
+
+The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do
+with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition of
+free software.
+
+A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:
+
+-   You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for
+    any purpose.
+-   You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To
+    make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the
+    source code, since making changes in a program without having the
+    source code is exceedingly difficult.)
+-   You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for
+    a fee.
+-   You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program,
+    so that the community can benefit from your improvements.
+
+Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction
+between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell
+copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are
+important for the community, and selling them is an important way to
+raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which
+people are not free to include on these collections is not free
+software.
+
+Because of the ambiguity of “free,” people have long looked for
+alternatives, but no one has found a better term. The English language
+has more words and nuances than any other, but it lacks a simple,
+unambiguous, word that means “free,” as in freedom—“unfettered” being
+the word that comes closest in meaning. Such alternatives as
+“liberated,” “freedom,” and “open” have either the wrong meaning or some
+other disadvantage.
+
+### GNU Software and the GNU System {#gnu-software-and-the-gnu-system .subheading}
+
+Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into
+reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software
+wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very beginning
+to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years later, I decided
+to use the X Window System rather than writing another window system for
+GNU.
+
+Because of these decisions, and others like them, the GNU system is not
+the same as the collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes
+programs that are not GNU software, programs that were developed by
+other people and projects for their own purposes, but which we can use
+because they are free software.
+
+### Commencing the Project {#commencing-the-project .subheading}
+
+In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software.
+Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere
+with distributing GNU as free software. If I had remained on the staff,
+MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed their own
+distribution terms, or even turned the work into a proprietary software
+package. I had no intention of doing a large amount of work only to see
+it become useless for its intended purpose: creating a new
+software-sharing community.
+
+However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+invited me to keep using the lab’s facilities.
+
+### The First Steps {#the-first-steps .subheading}
+
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free
+University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for “free”
+is written with a *v.*) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple
+languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple target
+machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it.
+
+He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the
+compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU
+Project would be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler.
+
+Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained
+the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multiplatform
+compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was
+written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a
+system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting it
+to the Motorola 68000 computer. But I had to give that up when I
+discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack space, and
+the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.
+
+I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the
+entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree
+into a chain of “instructions,” and then generating the whole output
+file, without ever freeing any storage. At this point, I concluded I
+would have to write a new compiler from scratch. That new compiler is
+now known as GCC; none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, but I
+managed to adapt and use the C front end that I had written. But that
+was some years later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs.
+
+### GNU Emacs {#gnu-emacs .subheading}
+
+I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was
+beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to
+do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done
+my editing on other kinds of machines until then.
+
+At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the
+question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous
+ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer,
+`prep.ai.mit.edu`, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site;
+when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name to
+our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested people
+were not on the internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So the
+question was, what would I say to them?
+
+I could have said, “Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a
+copy for you.” Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10
+Emacs: tell them, “Mail me a tape and a SASE (self-addressed stamped
+envelope), and I will mail it back with Emacs on it.” But I had no job,
+and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I
+announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of
+\$150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the
+precursor of the companies that today distribute entire GNU/Linux system
+distributions.
+
+### Is a Program Free for Every User? {#is-a-program-free-for-every-user .subheading}
+
+If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author,
+this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone who
+has a copy of it. For example, public domain software[(4)](#FOOT4)
+(software that is not copyrighted) is free software; but anyone can make
+a proprietary modified version of it. Likewise, many free programs are
+copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive licenses which allow
+proprietary modified versions.
+
+The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System.
+Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a permissive
+license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies. They added X
+to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, and covered by
+the same nondisclosure agreement. These copies of X were no more free
+software than Unix was.
+
+The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+problem—they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was not
+freedom, just “success,” defined as “having many users.” They did not
+care whether these users had freedom, only that they should be numerous.
+
+This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of counting
+the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question, “Is this
+program free?” If you judged based on the freedom provided by the
+distribution terms of the MIT release, you would say that X was free
+software. But if you measured the freedom of the average user of X, you
+would have to say it was proprietary software. Most X users were running
+the proprietary versions that came with Unix systems, not the free
+version.
+
+### Copyleft and the GNU GPL {#copyleft-and-the-gnu-gpl .subheading}
+
+The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So we
+needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from
+being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is called
+“copyleft.”[(5)](#FOOT5)
+
+Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of
+its usual purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it
+becomes a means for keeping the program free.
+
+The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run
+the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute
+modified versions—but not permission to add restrictions of their own.
+Thus, the crucial freedoms that define “free software” are guaranteed to
+everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.
+
+For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This
+ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if it
+is published. When programmers who have jobs as programmers volunteer to
+improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their employers from
+saying, “You can’t share those changes, because we are going to use them
+to make our proprietary version of the program.”
+
+The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to
+ensure freedom for every user of the program. The companies that
+privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to
+their systems and hardware. These changes were small compared with the
+great extent of X, but they were not trivial. If making changes were an
+excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone to take
+advantage of the excuse.
+
+A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code.
+Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms are
+lacking for the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as well. To
+permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to sink a ship.
+Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this hole:
+anything added to or combined with a copylefted program must be such
+that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted.
+
+The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU
+software is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. We
+have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances.
+GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of
+copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary for
+manuals.[(6)](#FOOT6)
+
+### The Free Software Foundation {#the-free-software-foundation .subheading}
+
+As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved in
+the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding once
+again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a
+tax-exempt charity for free software development. The FSF also took over
+the Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding
+other free software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling
+free manuals as well.
+
+Most of the FSF’s income used to come from sales of copies of free
+software and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs
+with binaries, nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to
+redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (distributions for
+which we built the whole collection of software for the customer’s
+choice of platform). Today the FSF still sells manuals and other
+gear,[(7)](#FOOT7) but it gets the bulk of its funding from members’
+dues. You can join the FSF at <http://fsf.org/join>.
+
+Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a number
+of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the C library and the
+shell. The GNU C Library is what every program running on a GNU/Linux
+system uses to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a member of
+the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath. The shell used on
+most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again Shell,[(8)](#FOOT8)
+which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.
+
+We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was not
+just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a complete
+operating system, and these programs were needed for that goal.
+
+### Free Software Support {#free-software-support .subheading}
+
+The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business
+practice, but it is not against business. When businesses respect the
+users’ freedom, we wish them success.
+
+Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software business.
+When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way to make a
+living. I found it in selling services relating to the free software I
+had developed. This included teaching, for subjects such as how to
+program GNU Emacs and how to customize GCC, and software development,
+mostly porting GCC to new platforms.
+
+Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a
+number of corporations. Some distribute free software collections on
+CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user
+questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features. We are even
+beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free
+software products.
+
+Watch out, though—a number of companies that associate themselves with
+the term “open source” actually base their business on nonfree software
+that works with free software. These are not free software companies,
+they are proprietary software companies whose products tempt users away
+from freedom. They call these programs “value-added packages,” which
+shows the values they would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom.
+If we value freedom more, we should call them “freedom-subtracted”
+packages.
+
+### Technical Goals {#technical-goals .subheading}
+
+The principal goal of GNU is to be free software. Even if GNU had no
+technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage,
+allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the
+user’s freedom.
+
+But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to the
+work—for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+wherever that made sense.
+
+In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by
+deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit
+machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished), and
+to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a megabyte.
+In programs for which handling very large files was not crucial, we
+encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into core, then scan
+its contents without having to worry about I/O.
+
+These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+counterparts in reliability and speed.
+
+### Donated Computers {#donated-computers .subheading}
+
+As the GNU Project’s reputation grew, people began offering to donate
+machines running Unix to the project. These were very useful, because
+the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a Unix
+system, and replace the components of that system one by one. But they
+raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a copy of
+Unix at all.
+
+Unix was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU Project’s philosophy
+said that we should not use proprietary software. But, applying the same
+reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence in self defense is
+justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to use a proprietary
+package when that was crucial for developing a free replacement that
+would help others stop using the proprietary package.
+
+But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil. Today we
+no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them with
+free operating systems. If we could not replace a machine’s operating
+system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead.
+
+### The GNU Task List {#the-gnu-task-list .subheading}
+
+As the GNU Project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
+components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to make
+a list of the remaining gaps. We used it to recruit developers to write
+the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU Task List. In
+addition to missing Unix components, we listed various other useful
+software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly complete
+system ought to have.
+
+Today, [(9)](#FOOT9) hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task
+List—those jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But
+the list is full of projects that some might call “applications.” Any
+program that appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be a
+useful thing to add to an operating system.
+
+Even games are included in the task list—and have been since the
+beginning. Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But
+compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the list
+of games that Unix had. Instead, we listed a spectrum of different kinds
+of games that users might like.
+
+### The GNU Library GPL {#the-gnu-library-gpl .subheading}
+
+The GNU C Library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU Library
+General Public License,[(10)](#FOOT10) which gives permission to link
+proprietary software with the library. Why make this exception?
+
+It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says
+proprietary software products are entitled to include our code. (Why
+contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?) Using
+the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of strategy.
+
+The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler
+comes with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available only
+to free software would not have given free software any advantage—it
+would only have discouraged use of our library.
+
+One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this includes
+GNU/Linux), the GNU C Library is the only C library. So the distribution
+terms of the GNU C Library determine whether it is possible to compile a
+proprietary program for the GNU system. There is no ethical reason to
+allow proprietary applications on the GNU system, but strategically it
+seems that disallowing them would do more to discourage use of the GNU
+system than to encourage development of free applications. That is why
+using the Library GPL is a good strategy for the C library.
+
+For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be considered on a
+case-by-case basis. When a library does a special job that can help
+write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under the GPL,
+limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other free
+software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary
+software.
+
+Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide
+command-line editing for BASH. Readline is released under the ordinary
+GNU GPL, not the Library GPL. This probably does reduce the amount
+Readline is used, but that is no loss for us. Meanwhile, at least one
+useful application has been made free software specifically so it could
+use Readline, and that is a real gain for the community.
+
+Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides; free
+software developers need to make advantages for each other. I hope some
+day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries that have
+no parallel available to proprietary software, providing useful modules
+to serve as building blocks in new free software, and adding up to a
+major advantage for further free software development.
+
+### Scratching an Itch? {#scratching-an-itch .subheading}
+
+Eric Raymond[(11)](#FOOT11) says that “Every good work of software
+starts by scratching a developer’s personal itch.”[(12)](#FOOT12) Maybe
+that happens sometimes, but many essential pieces of GNU software were
+developed in order to have a complete free operating system. They come
+from a vision and a plan, not from impulse.
+
+For example, we developed the GNU C Library because a Unix-like system
+needs a C library, BASH because a Unix-like system needs a shell, and
+GNU tar because a Unix-like system needs a tar program. The same is true
+for my own programs—the GNU C compiler, GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.
+
+Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our
+freedom. Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program, which
+had been lost to the community because of the LZW patents. We found
+people to develop LessTif, and more recently started GNOME and Harmony,
+to address the problems caused by certain proprietary libraries (see
+below). We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to replace popular
+nonfree encryption software, because users should not have to choose
+between privacy and freedom.
+
+Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the
+work, and many features were added to them by various people for the
+sake of their own needs and interests. But that is not why the programs
+exist.
+
+### Unexpected Developments {#unexpected-developments .subheading}
+
+At the beginning of the GNU Project, I imagined that we would develop
+the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole. That is not how it
+happened.
+
+Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix system,
+each component could run on Unix systems long before a complete GNU
+system existed. Some of these programs became popular, and users began
+extending them and porting them—to the various incompatible versions of
+Unix, and sometimes to other systems as well.
+
+The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both
+funds and contributors to the GNU Project. But it probably also delayed
+completion of a minimal working system by several years, as GNU
+developers’ time was put into maintaining these ports and adding
+features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write one
+missing component after another.
+
+### The GNU Hurd {#the-gnu-hurd .subheading}
+
+By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing
+component was the kernel. We had decided to implement our kernel as a
+collection of server processes running on top of Mach. Mach is a
+microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University and then at the
+University of Utah; the GNU Hurd is a collection of servers (i.e., a
+herd of GNUs) that run on top of Mach, and do the various jobs of the
+Unix kernel. The start of development was delayed as we waited for Mach
+to be released as free software, as had been promised.
+
+One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the
+hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a
+source-level debugger to do it with. This part of the job had been done
+already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the Hurd servers as user
+programs, with GDB. But it took a long time to make that possible, and
+the multithreaded servers that send messages to each other have turned
+out to be very hard to debug. Making the Hurd work solidly has stretched
+on for many years.
+
+### Alix {#alix .subheading}
+
+The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd. Its
+original name was Alix—named after the woman who was my sweetheart at
+the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her name
+would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a joke,
+she told her friends, “Someone should name a kernel after me.” I said
+nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
+
+It did not stay that way. Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main
+developer of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix to
+refer to a certain part of the kernel—the part that would trap system
+calls and handle them by sending messages to Hurd servers.
+
+Later, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; independently, the
+Hurd design was changed so that the C library would send messages
+directly to servers, and this made the Alix component disappear from the
+design.
+
+But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name
+Alix in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her. So she did have
+the chance to find a kernel named after her.
+
+### Linux and GNU/Linux {#linux-and-gnulinux .subheading}
+
+The GNU Hurd is not suitable for production use, and we don’t know if it
+ever will be. The capability-based design has problems that result
+directly from the flexibility of the design, and it is not clear whether
+solutions exist.
+
+Fortunately, another kernel is available. In 1991, Linus Torvalds
+developed a Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. It was
+proprietary at first, but in 1992, he made it free software; combining
+Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete free
+operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in itself, of
+course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a version of the
+GNU system today.
+
+We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
+combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. Please don’t
+fall into the practice of calling the whole system “Linux,” since that
+means attributing our work to someone else. Please give us equal
+mention.[(13)](#FOOT13)
+
+### Challenges in Our Future {#challenges-in-our-future .subheading}
+
+We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free software.
+This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable. Several challenges
+make the future of free software uncertain; meeting them will require
+steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting for years. It will
+require the kind of determination that people display when they value
+their freedom and will not let anyone take it away.
+
+The following four sections discuss these challenges.
+
+#### Secret Hardware {#secret-hardware .subsubheading}
+
+Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware specifications
+secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers so that Linux and
+XFree86 can support new hardware. We have complete free systems today,
+but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot support tomorrow’s
+computers.
+
+There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do reverse
+engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The rest of us
+can choose the hardware that is supported by free software; as our
+numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a self-defeating
+policy.
+
+Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes—if we have built up a
+strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and nonfree
+drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend extra money,
+or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers? Yes, if the
+determination to have freedom is widespread.
+
+\[2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well. There is a free
+BIOS, LibreBoot[(14)](#FOOT14) (a distribution of coreboot); the problem
+is getting specs for machines so that LibreBoot can support them without
+nonfree “blobs.”\]
+
+#### Nonfree Libraries {#nonfree-libraries .subsubheading}
+
+A nonfree library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap for
+free software developers. The library’s attractive features are the
+bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
+program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system. (Strictly
+speaking, we could include your program, but it won’t *run* with the
+library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses the proprietary
+library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers into
+the trap.
+
+The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the
+80s. Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was clear
+what problem Motif would cause for them later on. The GNU Project
+responded in two ways: by asking individual free software projects to
+support the free X Toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and by asking for
+someone to write a free replacement for Motif. The job took many years;
+LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became powerful enough to
+support most Motif applications only in 1997.
+
+Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree GUI toolkit library, called Qt,
+was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE.
+
+Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not use
+the library. However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux systems
+who were not strict about sticking with free software added KDE to their
+systems—producing a system with more capabilities, but less freedom. The
+KDE group was actively encouraging more programmers to use Qt, and
+millions of new “Linux users” had never been exposed to the idea that
+there was a problem in this. The situation appeared grim.
+
+The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: GNOME
+and Harmony.
+
+GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU’s desktop
+project. Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the
+support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop
+facilities, but using free software exclusively. It has technical
+advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not just
+C++. But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of any
+nonfree software.
+
+Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+possible to run KDE software without using Qt.
+
+In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license
+which, when carried out, should make Qt free software. There is no way
+to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the community’s firm
+response to the problem that Qt posed when it was nonfree. (The new
+license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable to
+avoid using Qt.)
+
+\[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU
+GPL, which essentially solved this problem.\]
+
+How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree library? Will the whole
+community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will many of
+us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major problem? Our
+future depends on our philosophy.
+
+#### Software Patents {#software-patents .subsubheading}
+
+The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put
+algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty
+years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983,
+and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed
+GIFs. \[As of 2009 they have expired.\] In 1998, a free program to
+produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from distribution under threat
+of a patent suit.
+
+There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
+patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But
+each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may
+force all free software to lack some feature that users want. What will
+we do when this happens?
+
+Those of us who value free software for freedom’s sake will stay with
+free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the
+patented features. But those who value free software because they expect
+it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure when a
+patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the
+practical effectiveness of the “bazaar” model of development, and the
+reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop there. We
+must talk about freedom and principle.
+
+#### Free Documentation {#free-documentation .subsubheading}
+
+The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in our
+systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software package;
+when an important free software package does not come with a good free
+manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.
+
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
+free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, online and
+on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program.
+
+Permission for modification is crucial too. As a general rule, I don’t
+believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all
+sorts of articles and books. For example, I don’t think you or I are
+obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which
+describe our actions and our views.
+
+But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right to
+modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual, too—so they can provide
+accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A nonfree
+manual, which does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish
+the job, does not fill our community’s needs.
+
+Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem. For
+example, requirements to preserve the original author’s copyright
+notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is
+also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that they
+were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be deleted or
+changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical topics. These
+kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they don’t stop the
+conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to fit the modified
+program. In other words, they don’t block the free software community
+from making full use of the manual.
+
+However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
+the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media,
+through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do obstruct
+the community, the manual is not free, and we need another manual.
+
+Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends
+on philosophy.
+
+### We Must Talk about Freedom {#we-must-talk-about-freedom .subheading}
+
+Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat “Linux.” Free software has
+developed such practical advantages that users are flocking to it for
+purely practical reasons.
+
+The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing
+free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more
+ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software
+instead of proprietary software products.
+
+But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the
+philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble. Our ability to
+meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to
+stand firm for freedom. To make sure our community has this will, we
+need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the
+community.
+
+But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our
+community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of
+our community. We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts
+in balance.
+
+### “Open Source” {#open-source .subheading}
+
+Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+part of the community decided to stop using the term “free software” and
+say “open source software” instead.
+
+Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of “free” with
+“gratis”—a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit of
+principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU
+Project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many of
+whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above community,
+above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of “open source” focuses on the
+potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas
+of freedom, community, and principle.
+
+The “Linux” magazines are a clear example of this—they are filled with
+advertisements for proprietary software that works with GNU/Linux. When
+the next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines warn programmers to
+stay away from it, or will they run ads for it?
+
+The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways;
+all else being equal, it is useful. But winning their support by
+speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it
+makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education even
+worse.
+
+“Free software” and “open source” describe the same category of
+software, more or less, but say different things about the software, and
+about values. The GNU Project continues to use the term “free software,”
+to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is important.
+
+### Try! {#try .subheading}
+
+Yoda’s aphorism (“There is no ‘try’”) sounds neat, but it doesn’t work
+for me. I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I could
+do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the goal if I
+did. But I tried anyway, because there was no one but me between the
+enemy and my city. Surprising myself, I have sometimes succeeded.
+
+Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen. Then I found another
+threatened city, and got ready for another battle. Over time, I’ve
+learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my city,
+calling on other hackers to come and join me.
+
+Nowadays, often I’m not the only one. It is a relief and a joy when I
+see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize,
+this city may survive—for now. But the dangers are greater each year,
+and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community. We can’t take
+the future of freedom for granted. Don’t take it for granted! If you
+want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to defend it.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright The use of “hacker” to mean “security breaker” is a
+confusion on the part of the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize
+that meaning, and continue using the word to mean someone who loves to
+program, someone who enjoys playful cleverness, or the combination of
+the two. See my article “On Hacking,” at
+<http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html>. @end raggedright
+
+### [(2)](#DOCF2)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Piracy} for more on the erroneous use of the
+term “piracy.” @end raggedright
+
+### [(3)](#DOCF3)
+
+@raggedright As an Atheist, I don’t follow any religious leaders, but I
+sometimes find I admire something one of them has said. @end raggedright
+
+### [(4)](#DOCF4)
+
+@raggedright See @pageref{Category Public Domain Software} for more on
+public domain software. @end raggedright
+
+### [(5)](#DOCF5)
+
+@raggedright In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow)
+mailed me a letter. On the envelope he had written several amusing
+sayings, including this one: “Copyleft—all rights reversed.” I used the
+word “copyleft” to name the distribution concept I was developing at the
+time. @end raggedright
+
+### [(6)](#DOCF6)
+
+@raggedright We now use the GNU Free Documentation License
+(@pageref{FDL}) for documentation. @end raggedright
+
+### [(7)](#DOCF7)
+
+@raggedright See our online shop, at <http://shop.fsf.org>. @end
+raggedright
+
+### [(8)](#DOCF8)
+
+@raggedright “Bourne Again Shell” is a play on the name “Bourne Shell,”
+which was the usual shell on Unix. @end raggedright
+
+### [(9)](#DOCF9)
+
+@raggedright That was written in 1998. In 2009 we no longer maintain a
+long task list. The community develops free software so fast that we
+can’t even keep track of it all. Instead, we have a list of High
+Priority Projects, a much shorter list of projects we really want to
+encourage people to write. @end raggedright
+
+### [(10)](#DOCF10)
+
+@raggedright This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public
+License, to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it.
+See “Why You Shouldn’t Use the Lesser GPL for Your Next Library,” at
+<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>, for more information.
+@end raggedright
+
+### [(11)](#DOCF11)
+
+@raggedright Eric Raymond is a prominent open source advocate; see “Why
+Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” (@pageref{OS Misses
+Point}). @end raggedright
+
+### [(12)](#DOCF12)
+
+@raggedright Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on
+Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, rev. ed.
+(Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly, 2001), p. 23. @end raggedright
+
+### [(13)](#DOCF13)
+
+@raggedright See the “GNU/Linux FAQ,” at
+<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, and “Linux and the GNU System”
+(@pageref{Linux and GNU}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright
+
+### [(14)](#DOCF14)
+
+@raggedright See <http://libreboot.org>. @end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\