first

1 files changed, 117 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/university.md b/docs/university.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7699571
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/university.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University {#releasing-free-software-if-you-work-at-auniversity .chapter}
+======================================================
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2002, 2014 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2002. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite} In the free software movement, we
+believe computer users should have the freedom to change and
+redistribute the software that they use. The “free” in “free software”
+refers to freedom: it means users have the freedom to run, modify and
+redistribute the software. Free software contributes to human knowledge,
+while nonfree software does not. Universities should therefore encourage
+free software for the sake of advancing human knowledge, just as they
+should encourage scientists and other scholars to publish their work.
+
+Alas, many university administrators have a grasping attitude towards
+software (and towards science); they see programs as opportunities for
+income, not as opportunities to contribute to human knowledge. Free
+software developers have been coping with this tendency for almost 20
+years.
+
+When I started developing the GNU operating system, in 1984, my first
+step was to quit my job at MIT. I did this specifically so that the MIT
+licensing office would be unable to interfere with releasing GNU as free
+software. I had planned an approach for licensing the programs in GNU
+that would ensure that all modified versions must be free software as
+well—an approach that developed into the GNU General Public License (GNU
+GPL)—and I did not want to have to beg the MIT administration to let me
+use it.
+
+Over the years, university affiliates have often come to the Free
+Software Foundation for advice on how to cope with administrators who
+see software only as something to sell. One good method, applicable even
+for specifically funded projects, is to base your work on an existing
+program that was released under the GNU GPL. Then you can tell the
+administrators, “We’re not allowed to release the modified version
+except under the GNU GPL—any other way would be copyright infringement.”
+After the dollar signs fade from their eyes, they will usually consent
+to releasing it as free software.
+
+You can also ask your funding sponsor for help. When a group at NYU
+developed the GNU Ada Compiler, with funding from the US Air Force, the
+contract explicitly called for donating the resulting code to the Free
+Software Foundation. Work out the arrangement with the sponsor first,
+then politely show the university administration that it is not open to
+renegotiation. They would rather have a contract to develop free
+software than no contract at all, so they will most likely go along.
+
+Whatever you do, raise the issue early—well before the program is half
+finished. At this point, the university still needs you, so you can play
+hardball: tell the administration you will finish the program, make it
+usable, if they agree in writing to make it free software (and agree to
+your choice of free software license). Otherwise you will work on it
+only enough to write a paper about it, and never make a version good
+enough to release. When the administrators know their choice is to have
+a free software package that brings credit to the university or nothing
+at all, they will usually choose the former.
+
+The FSF may be able to persuade your university to accept the GNU
+General Public License, or to accept GPL version 3. If you can’t do it
+alone, please give us the chance to help. Send mail to
+<licensing@fsf.org>, and put “urgent” in the Subject field.
+
+Not all universities have grasping policies. The University of Texas has
+a policy that makes it easy to release software developed there as free
+software under the GNU General Public License. Univates in Brazil, and
+the International Institute of Information Technology in Hyderabad,
+India, both have policies in favor of releasing software under the GPL.
+By developing faculty support first, you may be able to institute such a
+policy at your university. Present the issue as one of principle: does
+the university have a mission to advance human knowledge, or is its sole
+purpose to perpetuate itself?
+
+In persuading the university, it helps to approach the issue with
+determination and based on an ethical perspective, as we do in the free
+software movement. To treat the public ethically, the software should be
+free—as in freedom—for the whole public.
+
+Many developers of free software profess narrowly practical reasons for
+doing so: they advocate allowing others to share and change software as
+an expedient for making software powerful and reliable. If those values
+motivate you to develop free software, well and good, and thank you for
+your contribution. But those values do not give you a good footing to
+stand firm when university administrators pressure or tempt you to make
+the program nonfree.
+
+For instance, they may argue that “We could make it even more powerful
+and reliable with all the money we can get.” This claim may or may not
+come true in the end, but it is hard to disprove in advance. They may
+suggest a license to offer copies “free of charge, for academic use
+only,” which would tell the general public they don’t deserve freedom,
+and argue that this will obtain the cooperation of academia, which is
+all (they say) you need.
+
+If you start from values of convenience alone, it is hard to make a good
+case for rejecting these dead-end proposals, but you can do it easily if
+you base your stand on ethical and political values. What good is it to
+make a program powerful and reliable at the expense of users’ freedom?
+Shouldn’t freedom apply outside academia as well as within it? The
+answers are obvious if freedom and community are among your goals. Free
+software respects the users’ freedom, while nonfree software negates it.
+
+Nothing strengthens your resolve like knowing that the community’s
+freedom depends, in one instance, on you.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\