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/university.md | |
download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs/university.md')
-rw-r--r-- | docs/university.md | 117 |
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/).\ |