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 | |
| download | fsfs-zh-5d6f7b414de4b04ddc19629ac6d1f5e5f3cb42ac.tar.xz | |
first
Diffstat (limited to 'docs')
102 files changed, 16186 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/appendix-a.md b/docs/appendix-a.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f1ea7b5 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/appendix-a.md @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +**A:** A Note on Software {#a-a-note-on-software .unnumbered} +========================= + +Written by Richard E. Buckman and Joshua Gay.\ + +This section is intended for people who have little or no knowledge of +the technical aspects of computer science. It is not necessary to read +this section to understand the essays and speeches presented in this +book; however, it may be helpful to those readers not familiar with some +of the jargon that comes with programming and computer science. + +A computer *programmer* writes software, or computer programs. A program +is more or less a recipe with *commands* to tell the computer what to do +in order to carry out certain tasks. You are more than likely familiar +with many different programs: your Web browser, your word processor, +your email client, and the like. + +A program usually starts out as *source code*. This higher-level set of +commands is written in a *programming language* such as C or Java. After +that, a tool known as a *compiler* translates this to a lower-level +language known as *assembly language*. Another tool known as an +*assembler* breaks the assembly code down to the final stage of *machine +language*—the lowest level—which the computer understands *natively*. + + + +For example, consider the “hello world” program, a common first program +for people learning C, which (when compiled and executed) prints “Hello +World!” on the screen. [(1)](#FOOT1) + +@thirdcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 2002 Richard E. +Buckman and Joshua Gay\ + {This note was originally published in 2002, in the first edition. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | int main(){ | +| | printf(''Hello World!''); | +| | return 0; | +| | } | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +In the Java programming language the same program would be written like +this: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | public class hello { | +| | public static void main(String a | +| | rgs[]) { | +| | System.out.println(''Hello W | +| | orld!''); | +| | } | +| | } | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +However, in machine language, a small section of it may look similar to +this: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | 110001111011101010010100100100101010 | +| | 1110 | +| | 011010101001100000111100101101010111 | +| | 1101 | +| | 010011111111111001011011000000001010 | +| | 0100 | +| | 010010000110010101101100011011000110 | +| | 1111 | +| | 001000000101011101101111011100100110 | +| | 1100 | +| | 011001000010000101000010011011110110 | +| | 1111 | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +The above form of machine language is the most basic representation +known as binary. All data in computers is made up of a series of 0-or-1 +values, but a person would have much difficulty understanding the data. +To make a simple change to the binary, one would have to have an +intimate knowledge of how a particular computer interprets the machine +language. This could be feasible for small programs like the above +examples, but any interesting program would involve an exhausting effort +to make simple changes. + +As an example, imagine that we wanted to make a change to our “Hello +World” program written in C so that instead of printing “Hello World” in +English it prints it in French. The change would be simple; here is the +new program: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | int main() { | +| | printf(''Bonjour, monde!''); | +| | return 0; | +| | } | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +It is safe to say that one can easily infer how to change the program +written in the Java programming language in the same way. However, even +many programmers would not know where to begin if they wanted to change +the binary representation. When we say “source code,” we do not mean +machine language that only computers can understand—we are speaking of +higher-level languages such as C and Java. A few other popular +programming languages are C++, Perl, and Python. Some are harder than +others to understand and program in, but they are all much easier to +work with compared to the intricate machine language they get turned +into after the programs are compiled and assembled. + +Another important concept is understanding what an *operating system* +is. An operating system is the software that handles input and output, +memory allocation, and task scheduling. Generally one considers common +or useful programs such as the *Graphical User Interface* (GUI) to be a +part of the operating system. The GNU/Linux operating system contains a +both GNU and non-GNU software, and a *kernel* called *Linux*. The kernel +handles low-level tasks that applications depend upon such as +input/output and task scheduling. The GNU software comprises much of the +rest of the operating system, including GCC, a general-purpose compiler +for many languages; GNU Emacs, an extensible text editor with many, many +features; GNOME, the GNU desktop; GNU libc, a library that all programs +other than the kernel must use in order to communicate with the kernel; +and Bash, the GNU command interpreter that reads your command lines. +Many of these programs were pioneered by Richard Stallman early on in +the GNU Project and come with any modern GNU/Linux operating system. + +It is important to understand that even if *you* cannot change the +source code for a given program, or directly use all these tools, it is +relatively easy to find someone who can. Therefore, by having the source +code to a program you are usually given the power to change, fix, +customize, and learn about a program—this is a power that you do not +have if you are not given the source code. Source code is one of the +requirements that makes a piece of software *free*. The other +requirements will be found along with the philosophy and ideas behind +them in this collection. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +In other programming languages, such as Scheme, the *Hello World* +program is usually not your first program. In Scheme you often start +with a program like this: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | (define (factorial n) | +| | (if (= n 0) | +| | 1 | +| | (* n (factorial (- n 1))))) | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +This computes the factorial of a number; that is, running +`(factorial 5)`would output 120, which is computed by doing 5 \* 4 \* 3 +\* 2 \* 1 \* 1. + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/appendix-b.md b/docs/appendix-b.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0103f6d --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/appendix-b.md @@ -0,0 +1,560 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +**B:** Translations of “Free Software” and “Gratis Software” {#b-translations-of-freesoftware-and-gratissoftware .unnumbered} +============================================================ + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ The most current list of translations and +transliterations is maintained at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html>. Please send any +additional translations or corrections to the list to +<web-translators@gnu.org>. @medskip @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © +1999, 2000, 2004, 2006–2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This version of the list is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +This is a list of recommended unambiguous translations for the term +“free software” (“free as in freedom”) into various languages, along +with translations for the term “gratis software,” in a separate column, +to show how to make the contrast. The parenthesized phrases in Latin +letters after some of the entries are transliterations (with vowels +added where relevant). + +@raggedright + +@global@hbadness=10000 @global@hfuzz=3.4pt + +en + +English + +free software + +gratis software + +af + +Afrikaans + +vrye sagteware + +gratis sagteware + +ar + +Arabic + +@lowerbox{2.7pt, +}\ + *(barmajiyat ḥorrah)* + +be + +Belarusian + +@lowerbox{2pt, +} *(svabodnae +pragramnae zabes’pjachen’ne)* + +bg + +Bulgarian + +@lowerbox{2pt, +}\ + *(svoboden softuer)* + +@lowerbox{2pt, +} *(bezplaten +softuer)* + +bn + +Bengali + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(swadhin software)* + +ca + +Catalan + +programari lliure + +programari gratuït + +cs + +Czech + +svobodný software + +bezplatný software + +cy + +Welsh + +meddalwedd rydd + +da + +Danish + +fri software *or* frit programmel + +gratis software + +de + +German + +freie Software + +Gratis-Software *or* kostenlose Software + +el + +Greek + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(elefthero logismiko)* + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(dorean logismiko)* + +eo + +Esperanto + +libera programaro *or* programo + +eu + +Basque + +software librea + +doako softwarea + +es + +Spanish + +software libre + +software gratuito + +et + +Estonian + +vaba tarkvara + +tasuta tarkvara + +fa + +Persian (Farsi) + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(narmafzar azad)* + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(narmafzar raygan)* + +fi + +Finnish + +vapaa ohjelmisto + +ilmainen ohjelmisto + +fr + +French + +logiciel libre + +logiciel gratuit + +ga + +Irish + +saorbhogearraí + +bogearraí saora in aisce + +he + +Hebrew + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(tochna chofshit)* + +@lowerbox{1pt, +}\ + *(tochna chinamit)* + +hi + +Hindi + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(mukt software)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(muft software)* + +hr + +Croatian + +slobodan softver + +besplatan softver + +hu + +Hungarian + +szabad szoftver + +ingyenes szoftver *or* ingyen szoftver + +hy + +Armenian + +@lowerbox{2pt, +}\ + *(azat tsragir/tsragrer)* + +ia + +Interlingua + +libere programmage *or*\ + libere programmario + +id + +Indonesian + +perangkat lunak bebas + +io + +Ido + +libera programaro + +is + +Icelandic + +frjáls hugbúna@dh{}ur + +it + +Italian + +software libero + +software gratuito + +ja + +Japanese + +@kern -0.5pt @lowerbox{1.5pt, +}\ + *(jiyū-sofutouea)* + +@lowerbox{1.5pt, +} +*(muryō-sofutouea)* + +ka + +Georgian + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} *(tavisupali +programebi)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} *(upaso +programebi)* + +ko + +Korean + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(ja-yu software)* + +lt + +Lithuanian + +laisva programinė įranga + +nemokama programinė įranga + +lv + +Latvian + +brīva programmatūra + +bezmaksas programmatūra + +mk + +Macedonian + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(sloboden softver)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} *(besplaten +softver)* + +ml + +Malayalam + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} +*(svatantrasophṯṯveyar)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} +*(soujanyasophṯṯveyar)* + +ms + +Malay + +perisian bebas + +nl + +Dutch + +vrije software + +gratis software + +no + +Norwegian + +fri programvare + +pl + +Polish + +wolne oprogramowanie + +darmowe oprogramowanie + +pt + +Portuguese + +software livre + +ro + +Romanian + +programe libere + +programe gratuite + +ru + +Russian + +@lowerbox{2pt, +}\ + *(svobodnie programmi)* + +@lowerbox{2pt, +} +*(besplatnie programmi)* + +sc + +Sardinian + +software liberu + +si + +Sinhala + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(nidahas mṛdukāṅga)* + +sk + +Slovak + +slobodný softvér + +sl + +Slovenian + +prosto programje + +sq + +Albanian + +software i lirë + +software falas + +sr + +Serbian + +@lowerbox{2pt, +} *or*\ + slobodni softver + +@lowerbox{2pt, +} *or* +besplatni softver + +sv + +Swedish + +fri programvara *or* fri mjukvara + +sw + +Swahili + +software huru *or*\ + programu huru za kompyuta + +ta + +Tamil + +@lowerbox{3.5pt, +}\ + *(kaṭṭaṟṟa meṉpoñaḷ)* + +@lowerbox{3.5pt, +} *(illavasa +menporul)* + +th + +Thai + +@lowerbox{2pt, +}\ + *(sofotwerseri)* + +tl + +Tagalog (Filipino) + +malayang software + +tr + +Turkish + +özgür yazilim + +uk + +Ukrainian + +@kern -1pt @lowerbox{3.1pt, +} *(vil’ne +prohramne zabezpechennja)* + +ur + +Urdu + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(azad software)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(muft software)* + +vi + +Vietnamese + +@lowerbox{3pt, +} + +zh-cn + +Chinese (simplified) + +@lowerbox{0.9pt, +}\ + *(zi-you ruan-jian)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(mian-fei ruan-jian)* + +zh-tw + +Chinese (traditional) + +@lowerbox{0.9pt, +}\ + *(zih-yo)* + +@lowerbox{3pt, +}\ + *(mien-fei)* + +zu + +Zulu + +isoftware ekhululekile + +@end raggedright + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/appendix-c.md b/docs/appendix-c.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4dc31f7 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/appendix-c.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +**C:** The Free Software Song {#c-the-free-software-song .unnumbered} +============================= + +The lyrics of “The Free Software Song” are sung to the melody of the +Bulgarian folk song “Sadi moma bela loza.” To listen to a recording of +the piece accompanied by Bulgarian instruments played in traditional +style, please visit\ + <http://gnu.org/music/FreeSWSong.ogg>. @firstcopyingnotice{{This song +is in a rhythm of 7/8; those unaccustomed to odd rhythms often take the +unevenness to be a mistake. The meter can be analyzed into three +subgroups as slow-quick-quick or 3-2-2. Such meters in Bulgarian music +can often be stretched, and some musicians analyze this song as 3-2-3 +instead; however, the last “3” is not as long as the first. Yves Moreau, +who collected and taught the dance, endorses the rhythm of 7.\ + @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2010 Richard Stallman\ + {Richard Stallman wrote the lyrics above in 1991. This version of the +score is published in @fsfsthreecite}\ + + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md b/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3f1560e --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/applying-free-sw-criteria.md @@ -0,0 +1,323 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Applying the Free Software Criteria {#applying-the-free-software-criteria .chapter} +====================================== + +The four essential freedoms provide the criteria for whether a +particular piece of code is free/libre (i.e., respects its users’ +freedom).[(1)](#FOOT1) How should we apply them to judge whether a +software package, an operating system, a computer, or a web page is fit +to recommend? + +Whether a program is free affects first of all our decisions about our +private activities: to maintain our freedom, we need to reject the +programs that would take it away. However, it also affects what we +should say to others and do with others. + +A nonfree program is an injustice. To distribute a nonfree program, to +recommend a nonfree program to other people, or more generally steer +them into a course that leads to using nonfree software, means leading +them to give up their freedom. To be sure, leading people to use nonfree +software is not the same as installing nonfree software in their +computers, but we should not lead people in the wrong direction. + +At a deeper level, we must not present a nonfree program as a solution +because that would grant it legitimacy. Non-free software is a problem; +to present it as a solution denies the existence of the +problem.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +This article explains how we apply the basic free software criteria to +judging various kinds of things, so we can decide whether to recommend +them or not. + +### Software Packages {#software-packages .subheading} + +For a software package to be free, all the code in it must be free. But +not only the code. Since documentation files including manuals, README, +change log, and so on are essential technical parts of a software +package, they must be free as well.[(3)](#FOOT3) A software package is +typically used alongside many other packages, and interacts with some of +them. Which kinds of interaction with nonfree programs are ethically +acceptable? + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2015 Richard +Stallman\ + This article is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +We developed GNU so that there would be a free operating system, because +in 1983 none existed. As we developed the initial components of GNU, in +the 1980s, it was inevitable that each component depended on nonfree +software. For instance, no C program could run without a nonfree C +compiler until GCC was working, and none could run without Unix libc +until glibc was working. Each component could run only on nonfree +systems, because all systems were nonfree. + +After we released a component that could run on some nonfree systems, +users ported it to other nonfree systems; those ports were no worse, +ethically, than the platform-specific code we needed to develop these +components, so we incorporated their patches. + +When the kernel, Linux, was freed in 1992, it filled the last gap in the +GNU system. (Initially, in 1991, Linux had been distributed under a +nonfree license.) The combination of GNU and Linux made a complete free +operating system—GNU/Linux.[(4)](#FOOT4) + +At that point, we could have deleted the support for nonfree platforms, +but we decided not to. A nonfree system is an injustice, but it’s not +our fault a user runs one. Supporting a free program on that system does +not compound the injustice. And it’s useful, not only for users of those +systems, but also for attracting more people to contribute to developing +the free program. + +However, a nonfree program that runs on top of a free program is a +completely different issue, because it leads users to take a step away +from freedom. In some cases we disallow this: for instance, GCC +prohibits nonfree plug-ins.[(5)](#FOOT5) When a program permits nonfree +add-ons, it should at least not steer people towards using them. For +instance, we choose LibreOffice over OpenOffice because OpenOffice +suggests use of nonfree add-ons, while LibreOffice shuns them. We +developed IceCat[(6)](#FOOT6) initially to avoid proposing the nonfree +add-ons suggested by Firefox. + +In practice, if the IceCat package explains how to run IceCat on MacOS, +that will not lead people to run MacOS. But if it talked about some +nonfree add-on, that would encourage IceCat users to install the add-on. +Therefore, the IceCat package, including manuals and web site, shouldn’t +talk about such things. + +Sometimes a free program and a nonfree program interoperate but neither +is based on the other. Our rule for such cases is that if the nonfree +program is very well known, we should tell people how to use our free +program with it; but if the proprietary program is obscure, we should +not hint that it exists. Sometimes we support interoperation with the +nonfree program if that is installed, but avoid telling users about the +possibility of doing so. + +We reject “enhancements” that would work only on a nonfree system. Those +would encourage people to use the nonfree system instead of GNU, scoring +an own-goal. + +### GNU/Linux Distros {#gnulinux-distros .subheading} + +After the liberation of Linux in 1992, people began developing GNU/Linux +distributions (“distros”). Only a few distros are entirely free +software. + +The rules for a software package apply to a distro too: an ethical +distro must contain only free software and steer users only towards free +software. But what does it mean for a distro to “contain” a particular +software package? + +Some distros install programs from binary packages that are part of the +distro; others build each program from upstream source, and literally +*contain* only the recipes to download and build it. For issues of +freedom, how a distro installs a given package is not significant; if it +presents that package as an option, or its web site does, we say it +“contains” that package. + +The users of a free system have control over it, so they can install +whatever they wish. Free distros provide general facilities with which +users can install their own programs and their modified versions of free +programs; they can also install nonfree programs. Providing these +general facilities is not an ethical flaw in the distro, because the +distro’s developers are not responsible for what users get and install +on their own initiative. + +The developers become responsible for installation of nonfree software +when they steer the users toward a nonfree program—for instance, by +putting it in the distro’s list of packages, or distributing it from +their server, or presenting it as a solution rather than a problem. This +is the point where most GNU/Linux distros have an ethical flaw. + +People who install software packages on their own have a certain level +of sophistication: if we tell them “Baby contains nonfree code, but +Gbaby is free,” we can expect them to take care to remember which is +which. But distros are recommended to ordinary users who would forget +such details. They would think, “What name did they say I should use? I +think it was Baby.” + +Therefore, to recommend a distro to the general public, we insist that +its name not be similar to a distro we reject, so our message +recommending only the free distro can be reliably transmitted. + +Another difference between a distro and a software package is how likely +it is for nonfree code to be added. The developers of a program +carefully check the code they add. If they have decided to make the +program free, they are unlikely to add nonfree code. There have been +exceptions, including the very harmful case of the “binary blobs” that +were added to Linux, but they are a small fraction of the free programs +that exist. + +By contrast, a GNU/Linux distro typically contains thousands of +packages, and the distro’s developers may add hundreds of packages a +year. Without a careful effort to avoid packages that contain some +nonfree software, some will surely creep in. Since the free distros are +few in number, as a condition for listing that distro, we ask the +developers of each free distro to make a commitment to keep the distro +free software by removing any nonfree code or malware. See the GNU free +system distribution guidelines, at +<http://gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html>. + +We don’t ask for such promises for free software packages: it’s not +feasible, and fortunately not necessary. To get promises from the +developers of 30,000 free programs to keep them free would avoid a few +problems, at the cost of much work for the FSF staff; in addition, most +of those developers have no relationship with the GNU Project and might +have no interest in making us any promises. So we deal with the rare +cases that change from free to nonfree, when we find out about them. + +### Peripherals {#peripherals .subheading} + +A computer peripheral needs software in the computer—perhaps a driver, +perhaps firmware to be loaded by the system into the peripheral to make +it run. Thus, a peripheral is acceptable to use and recommend if it can +be used from a computer that has no nonfree software installed—if the +peripheral’s driver, and any firmware that the system needs to load into +it, are free. + +It is simple to check this: connect the peripheral to a computer running +a totally free GNU/Linux distro and see if it works. But most users +would like to know *before* they buy the peripheral, so we list +information about many peripherals in [h-node.org](h-node.org), a +hardware database for fully free operating systems. + +### Computers {#computers .subheading} + +A computer contains software at various levels. On what criterion should +we certify that a computer “Respects Your Freedom”? + +Obviously the operating system and everything above it must be free. In +the 90s, the startup software (BIOS, then) became replaceable, and since +it runs on the CPU, it is the same sort of issue as the operating +system. Thus, programs such as firmware and drivers that are installed +in or with the system or the startup software must be free. + +If a computer has hardware features that require nonfree drivers or +firmware installed with the system, we may be able to endorse it. If it +is usable without those features, and if we think most people won’t be +led to install the nonfree software to make them function, then we can +endorse it. Otherwise, we can’t. This will be a judgment call. + +A computer can have modifiable preinstalled firmware and microcode at +lower levels. It can also have code in true read-only memory. We decided +to ignore these programs in our certification criteria today, because +otherwise no computer could comply, and because firmware that is not +normally changed is ethically equivalent to circuits. So our +certification criteria cover only the code that runs on the computer’s +main processor and is not in true read-only memory. When and as free +software becomes possible for other levels of processing, we will +require free software at those levels too. + +Since certifying a product is active promotion of it, we insist that the +seller support us in return, by talking about free software rather than +open source[(7)](#FOOT7) and referring to the combination of GNU and +Linux as “GNU/Linux.”[(8)](#FOOT8) We have no obligation to actively +promote projects that won’t recognize our work and support our movement. + +See <http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria> for our +certification criteria. + +### Web Pages {#web-pages .subheading} + +Nowadays many web pages contain complex JavaScript programs and won’t +work without them. This is a harmful practice since it hampers users’ +control over their computing. Furthermore, most of these programs are +nonfree, an injustice. Often the JavaScript code spies on the +user.[(9)](#FOOT9) JavaScript has morphed into a attack on users’ +freedom. + +To address this problem, we have developed LibreJS, an add-on for +Firefox that blocks nontrivial nonfree JavaScript code. (There is no +need to block the simple scripts that implement minor user interface +hacks.) We ask sites to please free their JavaScript programs and mark +their licenses for LibreJS to recognize. + +Meanwhile, is it ethical to link to a web page that contains a nonfree +JavaScript program? If we were totally unyielding, we would link only to +free JavaScript code. However, many pages do work even when their +JavaScript code is not run. Also, you will most often encounter nonfree +JavaScript in other ways besides following our links; to avoid it, you +must use LibreJS or disable JavaScript. So we have decided to go ahead +and link to pages that work without nonfree JavaScript, while urging +users to protect themselves from nonfree JavaScript in general. + +However, if a page can’t do its job without running the nonfree +JavaScript code, linking to it undeniably asks people to run that +nonfree code. On principle, we do not link to such pages. + +### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} + +Applying the basic idea that *software should be free* to different +situations leads to different practical policies. As new situations +arise, the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation will adapt our +freedom criteria so as to lead computer users towards freedom, in +practice and in principle. By recommending only freedom-respecting +programs, distros, and hardware products, and stating your policy, you +can give much-needed support to the free software movement. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright My article “Avoiding Ruinous Compromises” +(@pageref{Compromise}) elaborates on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Needs Free Documentation” (@pageref{Free +Doc}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}) +for information. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright For the reason why GCC prohibits nonfree plug-ins, see my +response on the GCC mailing list, at +<https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat>. @end +raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) and “Why Open Source Misses the Point of +Free Software” (@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “What’s in a Name” (@pageref{Whats Name}). @end +raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See “The JavaScript Trap” (@pageref{JavaScript Trap}). @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/book-outline.md b/docs/book-outline.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..22953af --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/book-outline.md @@ -0,0 +1,278 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: 'This is the third edition of Richard Stallman''s collection of essays.' +distribution: global +keywords: 'Free Software, Free Society, 3rd ed.' +resource-type: document +title: 'Free Software, Free Society, 3rd ed.' +... + +Free Software, Free Society, 3rd ed. +====== + +This is the third edition of Richard Stallman’s collection of essays. + +@raggedright This is the third edition of Free Software, Free Society: +Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.\ + @end raggedright Free Software Foundation\ + 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor\ + Boston, MA 02110-1335\ + Copyright © 2002, 2010, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +> Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted +> worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is +> preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations +> of this book from the original English into another language provided +> the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and +> the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all +> copies. + +ISBN 978-0-9831592-5-4\ +\ + Cover design and photograph by Kyle Winfree.\ + +[Foreword to the Third Edition](#Foreword-v3) + + + +[Foreword to the First Edition](#Foreword-v1) + + + +[Preface](#Preface) + + + +• Part One + + + +[1. What Is Free Software?](#Definition) + + + +[2. The GNU Project](#GNU-Project) + + + +[3. The Initial Announcement of the +GNU Operating System](#Initial-Announcement) + + + +[4. Free Software Is Even More Important Now](#More-Important-Now) + + + +[5. Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software](#Schools) + + + +[6. Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software](#Government) + + + +[7. Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation](#Free-Doc) + + + +[8. Selling Free Software](#Selling) + + + +[10. Applying the Free Software Criteria](#Applying-FS-Criteria) + + + +• Part Two + + + +[11. What’s in a Name?](#Whats-Name) + + + +[12. Linux and the GNU System](#Linux-and-GNU) + + + +[13. Categories of Free and Nonfree Software](#Categories) + + + +[14. Why Open Source Misses the Point of +Free Software](#OS-Misses-Point) + + + +[15. Did You Say “Intellectual +Property”?@entrybreak{}It’s a Seductive Mirage](#Not-IPR) + + + +[16. Why Call It the Swindle?](#Swindle) + + + +[17. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)\ +Because They Are Loaded or Confusing](#Words-to-Avoid) + + + +• Part Three + + + +[18. The Right to Read](#Right-to-Read) + + + +[19. Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors](#Mis-Cop) + + + +[20. Science Must Push Copyright Aside](#Push-Cop-Aside) + + + +[21. Copyright vs. Community\ +@entrybreak{}in the Age of Computer +Networks](#Copyright-vs_002e-Community) + + + +• Part Four + + + +[22. Software Patents and Literary Patents](#SPLP) + + + +[23. The Danger of Software Patents](#DSP) + + + +[24. Giving the Software Field Protection +from Patents](#Limit-Patent-Effect) + + + +• Part Five + + + +• Licenses Intro + + + +[27. The X Window System Trap](#X) + + + +[28. Programs Must Not Limit +the Freedom to Run Them](#No-Limit-on-Freedom-0) + + + +[29. What Is Copyleft?](#Copyleft) + + + +[30. Why Copyleft?](#Why-Copyleft) + + + +[31. Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism](#Pragmatic) + + + +[32. The GNU General Public License](#GPL) + + + +[33. Why Upgrade to GPLv3](#Why-V3) + + + +[34. The GNU Lesser General Public License](#LGPL) + + + +[35. GNU Free Documentation License](#FDL) + + + +[36. On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL](#Exceptions) + + + +• Part Six + + + +[37. Can You Trust Your Computer?](#Can-You-Trust) + + + +[39. Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University](#University) + + + +• Games + + + +[41. The Danger of E-Books](#E_002dBooks-Danger) + + + +• E-Books and Freedom + + + +[43. Who Does That Server Really Serve?](#Server) + + + +• Part Seven + + + +[44. Avoiding Ruinous Compromises](#Compromise) + + + +[45. Overcoming Social Inertia](#Social-Inertia) + + + +[46. Freedom or Power?](#Freedom-or-Power) + + + +[47. Imperfection Is Not the Same as Oppression](#Imperfection) + + + +[48. How Much Surveillance Can Democracy +Withstand?](#Surveillance-vs_002e-Democracy) + + + +[**A:** A Note on Software](#Appendix-A) + + + +[**B:** Translations of “Free Software” and +“Gratis Software”](#Appendix-B) + + + +[**C:** The Free Software Song](#Appendix-C) + + + +``` {.menu-comment} +``` + diff --git a/docs/can-you-trust.md b/docs/can-you-trust.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..116308f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/can-you-trust.md @@ -0,0 +1,269 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Can You Trust Your Computer? {#can-you-trust-your-computer .chapter} +=============================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2002, 2007, 2014, 2015 Richard +Stallman\ + {This essay was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2002. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Who should your computer take its +orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not +obey someone else. With a plan they call “trusted computing,” large +media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), +together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are +planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft’s +version of this scheme is called Palladium.) Proprietary programs have +included malicious features before, but this plan would make it +universal. + +Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don’t control what +it does; you can’t study the source code, or change it. It’s not +surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put +you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one +version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software +on your hard disk; a recent “security” upgrade in Windows Media Player +required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: +the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa’s business +partner can rent out the use of your computer to its clients. These +malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them +it is hard to remove them, since you don’t have the source code. + +In the past, these were isolated incidents. “Trusted computing” would +make the practice pervasive. “Treacherous computing” is a more +appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your +computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to +stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every +operation may require explicit permission. + +The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer +includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are +kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to +control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you +can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will +continually download new authorization rules through the internet, and +impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don’t allow your +computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the internet, some +capabilities will automatically cease to function. + +Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous +computing for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), so that downloaded +videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing +will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that +you would get from those companies. You, the public, ought to have both +the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that +someone will find a way to produce unencrypted versions, and to upload +and share them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but that is no excuse +for the system.) + +Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are +plans to use the same facility for email and documents—resulting in +email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read +on the computers in one company. + +Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something +that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can’t use +the email to show that the decision was not yours. “Getting it in +writing” doesn’t protect you when the order is written in disappearing +ink. + +Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is +illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company’s audit +documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move +forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the +activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won’t be able to read +the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous +computing becomes a paradise for corruption. + +Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing +when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors +can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by +laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word +documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when +saving them, the free software community won’t have a chance of +developing software to read them—and if we could, such programs might +even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. + +Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new +authorization rules through the internet, and impose those rules +automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not +like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new +instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that +document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new +instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive +erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself. + +You might think you can find out what nasty things a +treacherous-computing application does, study how painful they are, and +decide whether to accept them. Even if you can find this out, it would +be foolish to accept the deal, but you can’t even expect the deal to +stand still. Once you come to depend on using the program, you are +hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some +applications will automatically download upgrades that will do something +different—and they won’t give you a choice about whether to upgrade. + +Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not +using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if +you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in +charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a malicious +feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can +use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs +and tools on nonfree operating systems; this falls short of fully giving +you freedom, but many users do it. + +Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and +free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at +all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating +system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free +operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous +computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by +the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on +such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could +be a crime. + +There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers +to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old +computers to the internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don’t +Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don’t legally +force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it +may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, +although this causes several sorts of problems.[(1)](#FOOT1) If only a +treacherous-computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many +people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of +individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous +computing,[(2)](#FOOT2) we must join together and confront the situation +as a collective choice. + +To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to +organize. We need your help! Please support +[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org), the FSF’s campaign +against Digital Restrictions Management. + +### Postscripts {#postscripts .subheading} + +1. The computer security field uses the term “trusted computing” in a + different way—beware of confusion between the two meanings. +2. The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that + implements public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you + can use to send secure and private email. It is useful to explore + how GPG differs from treacherous computing, and see what makes one + helpful and the other so dangerous. + + When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you use + GPG to decode it, the result is an unencrypted document that you can + read, forward, copy, and even reencrypt to send it securely to + someone else. A treacherous-computing application would let you read + the words on the screen, but would not let you produce an + unencrypted document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free + software package, makes security features available to the users; + *they* use *it*. Treacherous computing is designed to impose + restrictions on the users; *it* uses *them*. + +3. The supporters of treacherous computing focus their discourse on its + beneficial uses. What they say is often correct, just not important. + + Like most hardware, treacherous-computing hardware can be used for + purposes which are not harmful. But these features can be + implemented in other ways, without treacherous-computing hardware. + The principal difference that treacherous computing makes for users + is the nasty consequence: rigging your computer to work against you. + + What they say is true, and what I say is true. Put them together and + what do you get? Treacherous computing is a plan to take away our + freedom, while offering minor benefits to distract us from what we + would lose. + +4. Microsoft presents Palladium as a security measure, and claims that + it will protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently false. + A presentation by Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated that one + of the specifications of Palladium is that existing operating + systems and applications will continue to run; therefore, viruses + will continue to be able to do all the things that they can + do today. + + When Microsoft employees speak of “security” in connection with + Palladium, they do not mean what we normally mean by that word: + protecting your machine from things you do not want. They mean + protecting your copies of data on your machine from access by you in + ways others do not want. A slide in the presentation listed several + types of secrets Palladium could be used to keep, including “third + party secrets” and “user secrets”—but it put “user secrets” in + quotation marks, recognizing that this is somewhat of an absurdity + in the context of Palladium. + + The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently + associate with the context of security, such as “attack,” “malicious + code,” “spoofing,” as well as “trusted.” None of them means what it + normally means. “Attack” doesn’t mean someone trying to hurt you, it + means you trying to copy music. “Malicious code” means code + installed by you to do what someone else doesn’t want your machine + to do. “Spoofing” doesn’t mean someone’s fooling you, it means your + fooling Palladium. And so on. + +5. A previous statement by the Palladium developers stated the basic + premise that whoever developed or collected information should have + total control of how you use it. This would represent a + revolutionary overturn of past ideas of ethics and of the legal + system, and create an unprecedented system of control. The specific + problems of these systems are no accident; they result from the + basic goal. It is the goal we must reject. +6. As of 2015, treacherous computing has been implemented for PCs in + the form of the “Trusted Platform Module”; however, for practical + reasons, the TPM has proved a total failure for the goal of + providing a platform for remote attestation to verify Digital + Restrictions Management. Thus, companies implement DRM using + other methods. At present, “Trusted Platform Modules” are not being + used for DRM at all, and there are reasons to think that it will not + be feasible to use them for DRM. Ironically, this means that the + only current uses of the “Trusted Platform Modules” are the innocent + secondary uses—for instance, to verify that no one has + surreptitiously changed the system in a computer. + + Therefore, we conclude that the “Trusted Platform Modules” available + for PCs are not dangerous, and there is no reason not to include one + in a computer or support it in system software. + + This does not mean that everything is rosy. Other hardware systems + for blocking the owner of a computer from changing the software in + it are in use in some ARM PCs as well as processors in portable + phones, cars, TVs and other devices, and these are fully as bad as + we expected. + + This also does not mean that remote attestation is harmless. If ever + a device succeeds in implementing that, it will be a grave threat to + users’ freedom. The current “Trusted Platform Module” is harmless + only because it failed in the attempt to make remote + attestation feasible. We must not presume that all future attempts + will fail too. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See my article “We Can Put an End to Word Attachments,” at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>, for a description +of the problems Word documents cause and a number of suggestions on how +to tackle them. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright For further information, see the “‘Trusted Computing’ +Frequently Asked Questions,” at +<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html>. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/categories.md b/docs/categories.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..465f384 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/categories.md @@ -0,0 +1,404 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Categories of Free and Nonfree Software {#categories-of-free-and-nonfree-software .chapter} +========================================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ See also “Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) +Because They Are Loaded or Confusing” (@pageref{Words to Avoid}). +@medskip @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1996–1998, 2001, 2006, +2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This list was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + + + +> *This diagram, originally by Chao-Kuei and updated by several others +> since, explains the different categories of software. It’s available +> as a Scalable Vector Graphic, at +> <http://gnu.org/philosophy/category.svg>, and as an XFig document, at +> <http://gnu.org/philosophy/category.fig>, under the terms of any of +> the GNU GPL v2-or-later, the GNU FDL v1.2-or-later, or the Creative +> Commons Attribution-Share Alike v2.0-or-later.* + +### Free Software {#free-software .subheading} + +Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use, +copy, and/or distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either +gratis or for a fee. In particular, this means that source code must be +available. “If it’s not source, it’s not software.” This is a simplified +description; see also the full definition, on @pageref{Definition}. + +If a program is free, then it can potentially be included in a free +operating system such as GNU, or free versions of the GNU/Linux +system.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +There are many different ways to make a program free—many questions of +detail, which could be decided in more than one way and still make the +program free. Some of the possible variations are described below. For +information on specific free software licenses, see the license list +page, at <http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. + +Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. But proprietary +software companies typically use the term “free software” to refer to +price. Sometimes they mean that you can obtain a binary copy at no +charge; sometimes they mean that a copy is bundled with a computer that +you are buying, and the price includes both. Either way, it has nothing +to do with what we mean by free software in the GNU Project. + +Because of this potential confusion, when a software company says its +product is free software, always check the actual distribution terms to +see whether users really have all the freedoms that free software +implies. Sometimes it really is free software; sometimes it isn’t. + +Many languages have two separate words for “free” as in freedom and +“free” as in zero price. For example, French has “libre” and “gratuit.” +Not so English; there is a word “gratis” that refers unambiguously to +price, but no common adjective that refers unambiguously to freedom. So +if you are speaking another language, we suggest you translate “free” +into your language to make it clearer. See our list of translations of +the term “free software” into various other languages (@pageref{Appendix +B}). + +Free software is often more reliable than nonfree software.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +### Open Source Software {#open-source-software .subheading} + +The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or +less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same +class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too +restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not +accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are +small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open +source software is free. + +We prefer the term “free software” because it refers to +freedom—something that the term “open source” does not do.[(3)](#FOOT3) + +### Public Domain Software {#public-domain-software .subheading} + +Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If the +source code is in the public domain, that is a special case of +noncopylefted free software, which means that some copies or modified +versions may not be free at all. + +In some cases, an executable program can be in the public domain but the +source code is not available. This is not free software, because free +software requires accessibility of source code. Meanwhile, most free +software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the +copyright holders have legally given permission for everyone to use it +in freedom, using a free software license. + +Sometimes people use the term “public domain” in a loose fashion to mean +“free” or “available gratis.” However, “public domain” is a legal term +and means, precisely, “not copyrighted.” For clarity, we recommend using +“public domain” for that meaning only, and using other terms to convey +the other meanings. + +Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, anything +written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs. +Therefore, if you want a program you have written to be in the public +domain, you must take some legal steps to disclaim the copyright on it; +otherwise, the program is copyrighted. + +### Copylefted Software {#copylefted-software .subheading} + +Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure +that all copies of all versions carry more or less the same distribution +terms. This means, for instance, that copyleft licenses generally +disallow others to add additional requirements to the software (though a +limited set of safe added requirements can be allowed) and require +making source code available. This shields the program, and its modified +versions, from some of the common ways of making a program proprietary. + +Some copyleft licenses, such as GPL version 3, block other means of +turning software proprietary, such as tivoization.[(4)](#FOOT4) + +In the GNU Project, we copyleft almost all the software we write, +because our goal is to give *every* user the freedoms implied by the +term “free software.” See our copyleft article (@pageref{Copyleft}) for +more explanation of how copyleft works and why we use it. + +Copyleft is a general concept; to copyleft an actual program, you need +to use a specific set of distribution terms. There are many possible +ways to write copyleft distribution terms, so in principle there can be +many copyleft free software licenses. However, in actual practice nearly +all copylefted software uses the GNU General Public License. Two +different copyleft licenses are usually “incompatible,” which means it +is illegal to merge the code using one license with the code using the +other license; therefore, it is good for the community if people use a +single copyleft license. + +### Noncopylefted Free Software {#noncopylefted-free-software .subheading} + +Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with permission to +redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it. + +If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified +versions may not be free at all. A software company can compile the +program, with or without modifications, and distribute the executable +file as a proprietary software product. + +The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium released X11 with +distribution terms that made it noncopylefted free software, and +subsequent developers have mostly followed the same practice. A copy +which has those distribution terms is free software. However, there are +nonfree versions as well, and there are (or at least were) popular +workstations and PC graphics boards for which nonfree versions are the +only ones that work. If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free +software for you. The developers of X11 even made X11 nonfree for a +while;[(5)](#FOOT5) they were able to do this because others had +contributed their code under the same noncopyleft license. + +### Lax Permissive Licensed Software {#lax-permissive-licensed-software .subheading} + +Lax permissive licenses include the X11 license and the two BSD +licenses.[(6)](#FOOT6) These licenses permit almost any use of the code, +including distributing proprietary binaries with or without changing the +source code. + +### GPL-Covered Software {#gpl-covered-software .subheading} + +The GNU GPL (General Public License) is one specific set of distribution +terms for copylefting a program. The GNU Project uses it as the +distribution terms for most GNU software. + +To equate free software with GPL-covered software is therefore an error. + +### The GNU Operating System {#the-gnu-operating-system .subheading} + +The GNU operating system is the Unix-like operating system, which is +entirely free software, that we in the GNU Project have developed since +1984.[(7)](#FOOT7) + +A Unix-like operating system consists of many programs. The GNU system +includes all of the official GNU packages. It also includes many other +packages, such as the X Window System and TeX, which are not GNU +software. + +The first test release of the complete GNU system was in 1996. This +includes the GNU Hurd, our kernel, developed since 1990. In 2001 the GNU +system (including the GNU Hurd) began working fairly reliably, but the +Hurd still lacks some important features, so it is not widely used. +Meanwhile, the GNU/Linux system, an offshoot of the GNU operating system +which uses Linux as the kernel instead of the GNU Hurd, has been a great +success since the 90s.[(8)](#FOOT8) As this shows, the GNU system is not +a single static set of programs; users and distributors may select +different packages according to their needs and desires. The result is +still a variant of the GNU system. + +Since the purpose of GNU is to be free, every single component in the +GNU operating system is free software. They don’t all have to be +copylefted, however; any kind of free software is legally suitable to +include if it helps meet technical goals. + +### GNU Programs {#gnu-programs .subheading} + +“GNU programs” is equivalent to GNU software. A program Foo is a GNU +program if it is GNU software. We also sometimes say it is a “GNU +package.” + +### GNU Software {#gnu-software .subheading} + +“GNU software” is software that is released under the auspices of the +GNU Project.[(9)](#FOOT9) If a program is GNU software, we also say that +it is a GNU program or a GNU package. The README or manual of a GNU +package should say it is one; also, the Free Software +Directory[(10)](#FOOT10) identifies all GNU packages. + +Most GNU software is copylefted, but not all; however, all GNU software +must be free software. + +Some GNU software was written by staff of the Free Software Foundation, +but most GNU software comes from many volunteers.[(11)](#FOOT11) (Some +of these volunteers are paid by companies or universities, but they are +volunteers for us.) Some contributed software is copyrighted by the Free +Software Foundation; some is copyrighted by the contributors who wrote +it. + +### FSF-Copyrighted GNU Software {#fsf-copyrighted-gnu-software .subheading} + +The developers of GNU packages can transfer the copyright to the FSF, or +they can keep it. The choice is theirs. + +If they have transferred the copyright to the FSF, the program is +FSF-copyrighted GNU software, and the FSF can enforce its license. If +they have kept the copyright, enforcing the license is their +responsibility. + +The FSF does not accept copyright assignments of software that is not an +official GNU package, as a rule. + +### Nonfree Software {#nonfree-software .subheading} + +Nonfree software is any software that is not free. Its use, +redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for +permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can’t do it +freely. + +### Proprietary Software {#proprietary-software .subheading} + +Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past +we subdivided nonfree software into “semifree software,” which could be +modified and redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary software,” +which could not be. But we have dropped that distinction and now use +“proprietary software” as synonymous with nonfree software. + +The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any +proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific +purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from +that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary +program. + +For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the +1980s, because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. +Nowadays, since free operating systems are available, the excuse is no +longer applicable; we do not use any nonfree operating systems, and any +new computer we install must run a completely free operating system. + +We don’t insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live +by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will +follow it too, for your freedom’s sake. + +### Freeware {#freeware .subheading} + +The term “freeware” has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly +used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and +their source code is not available). These packages are *not* free +software, so please don’t use “freeware” to refer to free software. + +### Shareware {#shareware .subheading} + +Shareware is software which comes with permission for people to +redistribute copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is +*required* to pay a license fee. + +Shareware is not free software, or even semifree. There are two reasons +it is not: + +- For most shareware, source code is not available; thus, you cannot + modify the program at all. +- Shareware does not come with permission to make a copy and install + it without paying a license fee, not even for individuals engaging + in nonprofit activity. (In practice, people often disregard the + distribution terms and do this anyway, but the terms don’t + permit it.) + +### Private software {#private-software .subheading} + +Private or custom software is software developed for one user (typically +an organization or company). That user keeps it and uses it, and does +not release it to the public either as source code or as binaries. + +A private program is free software (in a somewhat trivial sense) if its +sole user has the four freedoms. In particular, if the user has full +rights to the private program, the program is free. However, if the user +distributes copies to others and does not provide the four freedoms with +those copies, those copies are not free software. + +Free software is a matter of freedom, not access. In general we do not +believe it is wrong to develop a program and not release it. There are +occasions when a program is so important that one might argue that +withholding it from the public is doing wrong to humanity. However, such +cases are rare. Most programs are not that important, and declining to +release them is not particularly wrong. Thus, there is no conflict +between the development of private or custom software and the principles +of the free software movement. + +Nearly all employment for programmers is in development of custom +software; therefore most programming jobs are, or could be, done in a +way compatible with the free software movement. + +### Commercial Software {#commercial-software .subheading} + +“Commercial” and “proprietary” are not the same! Commercial software is +software developed by a business as part of its business. Most +commercial software is proprietary, but there is commercial free +software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software. + +For example, GNU Ada is developed by a company. It is always distributed +under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is free software; but its +developers sell support contracts. When their salesmen speak to +prospective customers, sometimes the customers say, “We would feel safer +with a commercial compiler.” The salesmen reply, “GNU Ada *is* a +commercial compiler; it happens to be free software.” For the GNU +Project, the priorities are in the other order: the important thing is +that GNU Ada is free software; that it is commercial is just a detail. +However, the additional development of GNU Ada that results from its +being commercial is definitely beneficial. Please help spread the +awareness that free commercial software is possible. You can do this by +making an effort not to say “commercial” when you mean “proprietary.” + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}) +for more information. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is More Reliable!” at\ + <http://gnu.org/software/reliability.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” +(@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “Why Upgrade to GPLv3” (@pageref{Why V3}) for more on +this. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “The X Window System Trap” (@pageref{X}). @end +raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See “The BSD License Problem,” at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See “Overview of the GNU System,” at +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html>, for more historical background. +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}) +for more information. @end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See “Overview of the GNU System,” at +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html>, for more historical background. +@end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See <http://directory.fsf.org>. @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/people/people.html>. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/category.pdf b/docs/category.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6abb4fb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/category.pdf diff --git a/docs/code.pdf b/docs/code.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..aca7539 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/code.pdf diff --git a/docs/compromise.md b/docs/compromise.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d65e356 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/compromise.md @@ -0,0 +1,214 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Avoiding Ruinous Compromises {#avoiding-ruinous-compromises .chapter} +=============================== + +> On September 27, 1983, I announced a plan to create a completely free +> operating system called GNU—for “GNU’s Not Unix.” To mark the 25th +> anniversary of the GNU system, I wrote this article to show how our +> community could avoid ruinous compromises. In addition to avoiding +> such compromises, there are many ways you can help GNU and free +> software. One basic way is to join the Free Software Foundation as an +> Associate Member.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +The free software movement aims for a social change: to make all +software free[(2)](#FOOT2) so that all software users are free and can +be part of a community of cooperation. Every nonfree program gives its +developer unjust power over the users. Our goal is to put an end to that +injustice. + +The road to freedom is a long road.[(3)](#FOOT3) It will take many steps +and many years to reach a world in which it is normal for software users +to have freedom. Some of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice. +Some of them become easier if we make compromises with people that have +different goals. + +Thus, the Free Software Foundation makes compromises—even major ones. +For instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 +of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) so that major companies +would contribute to and distribute GPLv3-covered software and thus bring +some patents under the effect of these provisions. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule A similar point in a different area +of life: “‘Nudge’ Is Not Enough, It’s True. But We Already Knew That” +(Jonathan Rowson, 19 July 2011, [http://guardian.co.\ +uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change](http://guardian.co.%3Cbr%3Euk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change)) +says that “changes in attitudes and perspectives” are needed as well as +“nudges.” @medskip @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2008, 2009, +2014, 2015 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2008. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +The Lesser GPL’s purpose is a compromise: we use it on certain chosen +free libraries to permit their use in nonfree programs because we think +that legally prohibiting this would only drive developers to proprietary +libraries instead. We accept and install code in GNU programs to make +them work together with common nonfree programs, and we document and +publicize this in ways that encourage users of the latter to install the +former, but not vice versa. We support specific campaigns we agree with, +even when we don’t fully agree with the groups behind them. + +But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our +community are willing to make them. For instance, we endorse only the +GNU/Linux distributions that have policies not to include nonfree +software or lead users to install it.[(4)](#FOOT4) To endorse nonfree +distributions would be a ruinous compromise. + +Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the long +term. That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the level of +actions. + +At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce the +premises we seek to change. Our goal is a world in which software users +are free, but as yet most computer users do not even recognize freedom +as an issue. They have taken up “consumer” values, which means they +judge any program only on practical characteristics such as price and +convenience. + +Dale Carnegie’s classic self-help book, How to Win Friends and Influence +People, advises that the most effective way to persuade someone to do +something is to present arguments that appeal to his values. There are +ways we can appeal to the consumer values typical in our society. For +instance, free software obtained gratis can save the user money. Many +free programs are convenient and reliable, too. Citing those practical +benefits has succeeded in persuading many users to adopt various free +programs, some of which are now quite successful. + +If getting more people to use some free programs is as far as you aim to +go, you might decide to keep quiet about the concept of freedom, and +focus only on the practical advantages that make sense in terms of +consumer values. That’s what the term “open source” and its associated +rhetoric do. + +That approach can get us only part way to the goal of freedom. People +who use free software only because it is convenient will stick with it +only as long as it is convenient. And they will see no reason not to use +convenient proprietary programs along with it. + +The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer +values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That’s why we do not +support open source. + +To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do more +than get people to use some free software. We need to spread the idea of +judging software (and other things) on “citizen values,” based on +whether it respects users’ freedom and community, not just in terms of +convenience. Then people will not fall into the trap of a proprietary +program baited by an attractive, convenient feature. + +To promote citizen values, we have to talk about them and show how they +are the basis of our actions. We must reject the Dale Carnegie +compromise that would influence their actions by endorsing their +consumer values. + +This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all—we can and +we do. It becomes a problem only when the practical advantage steals the +scene and pushes freedom into the background. Therefore, when we cite +the practical advantages of free software, we reiterate frequently that +those are just *additional, secondary* reasons to prefer it. + +It’s not enough to make our words accord with our ideals; our actions +have to accord with them too. So we must also avoid compromises that +involve doing or legitimizing the things we aim to stamp out. + +For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to +GNU/Linux if you include some nonfree programs. This could mean a cute +nonfree application that will catch some user’s eye, or a nonfree +programming platform such as Java[(5)](#FOOT5) (formerly) or the Flash +runtime (still), or a nonfree device driver that enables support for +certain hardware models. + +These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal. If you +distribute nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will find +it hard to say, “Nonfree software is an injustice, a social problem, and +we must put an end to it.” And even if you do continue to say those +words, your actions will undermine them. + +The issue here is not whether people should be *able* or *allowed* to +install nonfree software; a general-purpose system enables and allows +users to do whatever they wish. The issue is whether we guide users +towards nonfree software. What they do on their own is their +responsibility; what we do for them, and what we direct them towards, is +ours. We must not direct the users towards proprietary software as if it +were a solution, because proprietary software is the problem. + +A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can +distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you have +certain values, but your actions imply other, conflicting values, you +are likely to change your values or your actions so as to resolve the +contradiction. Thus, projects that argue only from practical advantages, +or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly always shy away +from even *suggesting* that nonfree software is unethical. For their +participants, as well as for the public, they reinforce consumer values. +We must reject these compromises if we wish to keep our values straight. + +If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal of +freedom, look at the FSF’s resources area, at +<http://www.fsf.org/resources>. It lists hardware and machine +configurations that work with free software, totally free GNU/Linux +distros to install, and thousands of free software packages[(6)](#FOOT6) +that work in a 100 percent free software environment. If you want to +help the community stay on the road to freedom, one important way is to +publicly uphold citizen values. When people are discussing what is good +or bad, or what to do, cite the values of freedom and community and +argue from them. + +A road that lets you go faster is not better if it leads to the wrong +place. Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal, but beware +of compromises that lead away from the goal. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright You can support the FSF through a membership at +<http://my.fsf.org/join>. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright “Free” as in “freedom.” See @pageref{Definition} for the +full definition of free software. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See FSF executive director John Sullivan’s 2008 article +“The Last Mile Is Always the Hardest,” at +[http://fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-\ +always-the-hardest](http://fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-%3Cbr%3Ealways-the-hardest), +for his perspective on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright You can find the full list of the Free System Distribution +Guidelines (GNU FSDG) at +[http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-\ +guidelines.html](http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-%3Cbr%3Eguidelines.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html> for more on +this. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright The Free Software Directory, at <http://directory.fsf.org>, +lists all the free software we know about. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/copyleft.md b/docs/copyleft.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..533f89a --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/copyleft.md @@ -0,0 +1,134 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. What Is Copyleft? {#what-is-copyleft .chapter} +==================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 1996–2009, 2013 Free Software +Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Copyleft is a general method for +making a program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and +extended versions of the program to be free as well. + +The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the +public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program +and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows +uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. +They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a +proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified +form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the +middleman has stripped it away. + +In the GNU Project, our aim is to give *all* users the freedom to +redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the +freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have +freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we +“copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, +with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and +change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. + +Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free +software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist +only because of this. + +Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to +free software get permission to do so. These programmers often work for +companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more +money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, +but her employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary +software product. + +When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the +improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides +to release it as free software rather than throw it away. + +To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we +add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone +the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program’s code, *or any +program derived from it,* but only if the distribution terms are +unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. + +Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users’ +freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That’s why we +reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.” + +Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn’t +mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft +impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to +leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right.” + +Copyleft is a general concept, and you can’t use a general concept +directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In +the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most +software are contained in the GNU General Public License +(@pageref{GPL}). The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU +GPL for short. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions page about the +GNU GPL, at <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>. You can also read +about why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors, at +<http://gnu.org/copyleft/why-assign.html>. + +An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Affero General Public License +(AGPL), is designed for programs that are likely to be used on servers. +It ensures that modified versions used to implement services available +to the public are released as source code to the public. + +An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Lesser General Public License +(LGPL) (@pageref{LGPL}), applies to a few (but not all) GNU libraries. +To learn more about properly using the LGPL, please read the article +“Why You Shouldn’t Use the Lesser GPL for Your Next Library,” available +at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>. + +The GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) (@pageref{FDL}) is a form of +copyleft intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to +assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with +or without modifications, either commercially or noncommercially. + +The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU +source code distribution. + +All these licenses are designed so that you can easily apply them to +your own works, assuming you are the copyright holder. You don’t have to +modify the license to do this, just include a copy of the license in the +work, and add notices in the source files that refer properly to the +license. + +Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it +easy to copy code between various different programs. When they all have +the same distribution terms, there is no problem. The Lesser GPL, +version 2, includes a provision that lets you alter the distribution +terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into another +program covered by the GPL. Version 3 of the Lesser GPL is built as an +exception added to GPL version 3, making the compatibility automatic. + +If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the GNU +LGPL, please see the license instructions page, at +<http://gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-howto.html>, for advice. Please note that +you must use the entire text of the license you choose. Each is an +integral whole, and partial copies are not permitted. + +If you would like to copyleft your manual with the GNU FDL, please see +the instructions at the end of the FDL text (@pageref{FDL +Instructions}), and the GFDL instructions page, at +<http://gnu.org/copyleft/fdl-howto.html>. Again, partial copies are not +permitted. + +It is a legal mistake to use a backwards C in a circle instead of a +copyright symbol. Copyleft is based legally on copyright, so the work +should have a copyright notice. A copyright notice requires either the +copyright symbol (a C in a circle) or the word “Copyright.” + +A backwards C in a circle has no special legal significance, so it +doesn’t make a copyright notice. It may be amusing in book covers, +posters, and such, but be careful how you represent it in a web page! + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/copyright-vs-community.md b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..72c9845 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/copyright-vs-community.md @@ -0,0 +1,936 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Copyright vs. Community\ +@entrybreak{}in the Age of Computer Networks {#copyright-vs.-community-entrybreakin-the-age-of-computer-networks .chapter} +============================================ + +> This is a transcript of the keynote speech presented by Richard +> Stallman, on 12 October 2009, at the LIANZA conference, at the +> Christchurch Convention Centre, in Christchurch, New Zealand. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + Thank you to Bookman for the original transcript. This version of it is +part of @fsfsthreecite} + +> **Brenda Chawner:** Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Today +> I have the privilege of introducing Richard Stallman, whose keynote +> speech is being sponsored by the School of Information Management at +> Victoria University of Wellington. +> +> Richard has been working to promote software freedom for over 25 +> years. In 1983 he started the GNU Project to develop a free operating +> system \[the GNU system\], and in 1985 he set up the Free Software +> Foundation. Every time you read or send a message to nz-libs, you use +> the Mailman software which is part of the GNU Project. So whether you +> realize it or not, Richard’s work has touched all of your lives. +> +> I like to describe him as the most influential person most people have +> never heard of, although he tells me that that cannot possibly be true +> because it cannot be tested. +> +> **RMS:** We can’t tell. +> +> **BC:** I said that—I still like it. His ideas about software freedom +> and free access to information were used by Tim Berners-Lee when he +> created the world’s first web server, and in 1999 his musings about a +> free online encyclopedia inspired Jimmy Wales to set up what is now +> Wikipedia. +> +> Today Richard will be talking to us about copyright vs. community in +> the age of computer networks, and their implications for libraries. +> Richard. +> +> **RMS:** I’ve been in New Zealand for a couple of weeks, and in the +> North Island it was raining most of the time. Now I know why they call +> gumboots “Wellingtons.” And then I saw somebody who was making chairs +> and tables out of ponga wood, and he called it fern-iture. Then we +> took the ferry to get here, and as soon as we got off, people started +> mocking and insulting us; but there were no hard feelings, they just +> wanted to make us really feel Picton. + +The reason people usually invite me to give speeches is because of my +work on free software. This is not a talk about free software; this talk +answers the question whether the ideas of free software extend to other +kinds of works. But in order for that to make sense, I’d better tell you +briefly what free software means. + +Free software is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free +speech,” not “free beer.” Free software is software that respects the +user’s freedom, and there are four specific freedoms that the user +deserves always to have: + +- Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. +- Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code of the program and + change it to make the program do what you wish. +- Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbor—that is, the freedom + to redistribute copies of the program, exact copies when you wish. +- And freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That’s + the freedom to publish your modified versions when you wish. + +If the program gives you these four freedoms then it’s free software, +which means the social system of its distribution and use is an ethical +system, one which respects the user’s freedom and the social solidarity +of the user’s community. But if one of these freedoms is missing or +insufficient, then it’s proprietary software, nonfree software, +user-subjugating software. It’s unethical. It’s not a contribution to +society. It’s a power grab. This unethical practice should not exist; +the goal of the free software movement is to put an end to it. All +software should be free, so that all users can be free. + +Proprietary software keeps the users divided and helpless: divided, +because they’re forbidden to share it, and helpless, because they don’t +have the source code so they can’t change it. They can’t even study it +to verify what it’s really doing to them, and many proprietary programs +have malicious features which spy on the user, restrict the user, even +back doors to attack the user. + +For instance, Microsoft Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can +forcibly install software changes, without getting permission from the +supposed owner of the computer. You may think it’s your computer, but if +you’ve made the mistake of having Windows running in it, then really +Microsoft has owned your computer. Computers need to be defenestrated, +which means either throw Windows out of the computer, or throw the +computer out the window. + +But any proprietary software gives the developers unjust power over the +users. Some of the developers abuse this power more, and some abuse it +less, but none of them ought to have it. You deserve to have control of +your computing, and not be forcibly dependent on a particular company. +So you deserve free software. + +At the end of speeches about free software, people sometimes ask whether +these same freedoms and ideas apply to other things. If you have a copy +of a published work on your computer, it makes sense to ask whether you +should have the same four freedoms—whether it’s ethically essential that +you have them or not. And that’s the question that I’m going to address +today. + +If you have a copy of something that’s not software, for the most part, +the only thing that might deny you any of these freedoms is copyright +law. With software that’s not so. The main ways of making software +nonfree are contracts and withholding the source code from the users. +Copyright is a sort of secondary, back up method. For other things +there’s no such distinction as between source code and executable code. + +For instance, if we’re talking about a text, if you can see the text to +read it, there’s nothing in the text that you can’t see. So it’s not the +same kind of issue exactly as software. It’s for the most part only +copyright that might deny you these freedoms. + +So the question can be restated: “What should copyright law allow you to +do with published works? What should copyright law say?” + +Copyright has developed along with copying technology, so it’s useful to +review the history of copying technology. Copying developed in the +ancient world, where you’d use a writing instrument on a writing +surface. You’d read one copy and write another. + +This technology was rather inefficient, but another interesting +characteristic was that it had no economy of scale. To write ten copies +would take ten times as long as to write one copy. It required no +special equipment other than the equipment for writing, and it required +no special skill other than literacy itself. The result was that copies +of any particular book were made in a decentralized manner. Wherever +there was a copy, if someone wanted to copy it, he could. + +There was nothing like copyright in the ancient world. If you had a copy +and wanted to copy it, nobody was going to tell you you weren’t +allowed—except if the local prince didn’t like what the book said, in +which case he might punish you for copying it. But that’s not copyright, +but rather something closely related, namely censorship. To this day, +copyright is often used in attempts to censor people. + +That went on for thousands of years, but then there was a big advance in +copying technology, namely the printing press. The printing press made +copying more efficient, but not uniformly. \[This was\] because mass +production copying became a lot more efficient, but making one copy at a +time didn’t benefit from the printing press. In fact, you were better +off just writing it by hand; that would be faster than trying to print +one copy. + +The printing press has an economy of scale: it takes a lot of work to +set the type, but then you can make many copies very fast. Also, the +printing press and the type were expensive equipment that most people +didn’t own; and the ability to use them, most literate people didn’t +know. Using a press was a different skill from writing. The result was a +centralized manner of producing copies: the copies of any given book +would be made in a few places, and then they would be transported to +wherever someone wanted to buy copies. + +Copyright began in the age of the printing press. Copyright in England +began as a system of censorship in the 1500s. I believe it was +originally meant to censor Protestants, but it was turned around and +used to censor Catholics and presumably lots of others as well. +According to this law, in order to publish a book you had to get +permission from the Crown, and this permission was granted in the form +of a perpetual monopoly to publish it. This was allowed to lapse in the +1680s, I believe \[it expired in 1695 according to the Wikipedia +entry\]. The publishers wanted it back again, but what they got was +something somewhat different. The Statute of Anne gave authors a +copyright, and only for 14 years, although the author could renew it +once. + +This was a totally different idea—a temporary monopoly for the author, +instead of a perpetual monopoly for the publisher. The idea developed +that copyright was a means of promoting writing. + +When the US constitution was written, some people wanted authors to be +entitled to a copyright, but that was rejected. Instead, the US +Constitution says that Congress can optionally adopt a copyright law, +and if there is a copyright law, its purpose is to promote progress. In +other words, the purpose is not benefits for copyright holders or +anybody they do business with, but for the general public. Copyright has +to last a limited time; publishers keep hoping for us to forget about +this. + +Here we have an idea of copyright which is an industrial regulation on +publishers, controlled by authors, and designed to provide benefits to +the public at large. It functioned this way because it didn’t restrict +the readers. + +Now in the early centuries of printing, and still I believe in the +1790s, lots of readers wrote copies by hand because they couldn’t afford +printed copies. Nobody ever expected copyright law to be something other +than an industrial regulation. It wasn’t meant to stop people from +writing copies, it was meant to regulate the publishers. Because of this +it was easy to enforce, uncontroversial, and arguably beneficial for +society. + +It was easy to enforce, because it only had to be enforced against +publishers. And it’s easy to find the unauthorized publishers of a +book—you go to a bookstore and say, “Where do these copies come from?” +You don’t have to invade everybody’s home and everybody’s computer to do +that. + +It was uncontroversial because, as the readers were not restricted, they +had nothing to complain about. Theoretically they were restricted from +publishing, but not being publishers and not having printing presses, +they couldn’t do that anyway. In what they actually could do, they were +not restricted. + +It was arguably beneficial because the general public, according to the +concepts of copyright law, traded away a theoretical right they were not +in a position to exercise. In exchange, they got the benefits of more +writing. + +Now if you trade away something you have no possible use for, and you +get something you can use in exchange, it’s a positive trade. Whether or +not you could have gotten a better deal some other way, that’s a +different question, but at least it’s positive. + +So if this were still in the age of the printing press, I don’t think +I’d be complaining about copyright law. But the age of the printing +press is gradually giving way to the age of the computer +networks—another advance in copying technology that makes copying more +efficient, and once again not uniformly so. + +Here’s what we had in the age of the printing press: mass production +very efficient, one at a time copying still just as slow as the ancient +world. Digital technology gets us here: they’ve both benefited, but +one-off copying has benefited the most. + +We get to a situation much more like the ancient world, where one at a +time copying is not so much worse \[i.e., harder\] than mass production +copying. It’s a little bit less efficient, a little bit less good, but +it’s perfectly cheap enough that hundreds of millions of people do it. +Consider how many people write CDs once in a while, even in poor +countries. You may not have a CD-writer yourself, so you go to a store +where you can do it. + +This means that copyright no longer fits in with the technology as it +used to. Even if the words of copyright law had not changed, they +wouldn’t have the same effect. Instead of an industrial regulation on +publishers controlled by authors, with the benefits set up to go to the +public, it is now a restriction on the general public, controlled mainly +by the publishers, in the name of the authors. + +In other words, it’s tyranny. It’s intolerable and we can’t allow it to +continue this way. + +As a result of this change, \[copyright\] is no longer easy to enforce, +no longer uncontroversial, and no longer beneficial. + +It’s no longer easy to enforce because now the publishers want to +enforce it against each and every person, and to do this requires cruel +measures, draconian punishments, invasions of privacy, abolition of our +basic ideas of justice. There’s almost no limit to how far they will +propose to go to prosecute the War on Sharing. + +It’s no longer uncontroversial. There are political parties in several +countries whose basic platform is “freedom to share.” + +It’s no longer beneficial because the freedoms that we conceptually +traded away (because we couldn’t exercise them), we now can exercise. +They’re tremendously useful, and we want to exercise them. + +What would a democratic government do in this situation? + +It would reduce copyright power. It would say: “The trade we made on +behalf of our citizens, trading away some of their freedom which now +they need, is intolerable. We have to change this; we can’t trade away +the freedom that is important.” We can measure the sickness of democracy +by the tendency of governments to do the exact opposite around the +world, extending copyright power when they should reduce it. + +One example is in the dimension of time. Around the world we see +pressure to make copyright last longer and longer and longer. + +A wave of this started in the US in 1998. Copyright was extended by 20 +years on both past and future works. I do not understand how they hope +to convince the now dead or senile writers of the 20s and 30s to write +more back then by extending copyright on their works now. If they have a +time machine with which to inform them, they haven’t used it. Our +history books don’t say that there was a burst of vigor in the arts in +the 20s when all the artists found out that their copyrights would be +extended in 1998. + +It’s theoretically conceivable that 20 years more copyright on future +works would convince people to make more effort in producing those +works. But not anyone rational, because the discounted present value of +20 more years of copyright starting 75 years in the future—if it’s a +work made for hire—and probably even longer if it’s a work with an +individual copyright holder, is so small it couldn’t persuade any +rational person to do anything different. Any business that wants to +claim otherwise ought to present its projected balance sheets for 75 +years in the future, which of course they can’t do because none of them +really looks that far ahead. + +The real reason for this law, the desire that prompted various companies +to purchase this law in the US Congress, which is how laws are decided +on for the most part, was they had lucrative monopolies and they wanted +those monopolies to continue. + +For instance, Disney was aware that the first film in which Mickey Mouse +appeared would go into the public domain in a few years, and then +anybody would be free to draw that same character as part of other +works. Disney didn’t want that to happen. Disney borrows a lot from the +public domain, but is determined never to give the slightest thing back. +So Disney paid for this law, which we refer to as the Mickey Mouse +Copyright Act. + +The movie companies say they want perpetual copyright, but the US +Constitution won’t let them get that officially. So they came up with a +way to get the same result unofficially: “perpetual copyright on the +installment plan.” Every 20 years they extend copyright for 20 more +years. So that at any given time, any given work has a date when it will +supposedly fall into the public domain. But that date is like tomorrow, +it never comes. By the time you get there they will have postponed it, +unless we stop them next time. + +That’s one dimension, the dimension of duration. But even more important +is the dimension of breadth: which uses of the work does copyright +cover? + +In the age of the printing press, copyright wasn’t supposed to cover all +uses of a copyrighted work, because copyright regulated certain uses +that were the exceptions in a broader space of unregulated uses. There +were certain things you were simply allowed to do with your copy of a +book. + +Now the publishers have got the idea that they can turn our computers +against us, and use them to seize total power over all use of published +works. They want to set up a pay-per-view universe. They’re doing it +with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)—the intentional features of +software that’s designed to restrict the user. And often the computer +itself is designed to restrict the user. + +The first way in which the general public saw this was in DVDs. A movie +on a DVD was usually encrypted, and the format was secret. The DVD +conspiracy kept this secret because they said anyone that wants to make +DVD players has to join the conspiracy, promise to keep the format +secret, and promise to design the DVD players to restrict the users +according to the rules, which say it has to stop the user from doing +this, from doing that, from doing that—a precise set of requirements, +all of which are malicious towards us. + +It worked for a while, but then some people figured out the secret +format, and published free software capable of reading the movie on a +DVD and playing it. Then the publishers said, “Since we can’t actually +stop them, we have to make it a crime.” And they started that in the US +in 1998 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which imposed +censorship on software capable of doing such jobs. + +So that particular piece of free software was the subject of a court +case. Its distribution in the US is forbidden; the US practices +censorship of software. + +The movie companies are well aware that they can’t really make that +program disappear—it’s easy enough to find it. So they designed another +encryption system, which they hoped would be harder to break, and it’s +called AACS, or the axe. + +The AACS conspiracy makes precise rules about all players. For instance, +in 2011 it’s going to be forbidden to make analog video outputs. So all +video outputs will have to be digital, and they will carry the signal +encrypted into a monitor specially designed to keep secrets from the +user. That is malicious hardware. They say that the purpose of this is +to “close the analog hole.” *\[Stallman takes off his glasses.\]* Here’s +one and here’s another, that they’d like to poke out +permanently.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +How do I know about these conspiracies? The reason is they’re not +secret—they have web sites. The AACS web site proudly describes the +contracts that manufacturers have to sign, which is how I know about +this requirement. It proudly states the names of the companies that have +established this conspiracy, which include Microsoft and Apple, and +Intel, and Sony, and Disney, and IBM. + +A conspiracy of companies designed to restrict the public’s access to +technology ought to be prosecuted as a serious crime, like a conspiracy +to fix prices, except it’s worse, so the prison sentences for this +should be longer. But these companies are quite confident that our +governments are on their side against us. They have no fear against +being prosecuted for these conspiracies, which is why they don’t bother +to hide them. + +In general, DRM is set up by a conspiracy of companies. Once in a while +a single company can do it, but generally it requires a conspiracy +between technology companies and publishers, so \[it’s\] almost always a +conspiracy. + +They thought that nobody would ever be able to break the AACS, but about +three and a half years ago someone released a free program capable of +decrypting that format. However, it was totally useless, because in +order to run it you need to know the key. + +And then, six months later, I saw a photo of two adorable puppies, with +32 hex digits above them, and I wondered, “Why put those two things +together? I wonder if those numbers are some important key, and someone +could have put the numbers together with the puppies, figuring people +would copy the photo of the puppies because they were so cute. This +would protect the key from being wiped out.” + +And that’s what it was—that was the key to break the axe. People posted +it, and editors deleted it, because laws in many countries now conscript +them to censor this information. It was posted again, they deleted it; +eventually they gave up, and in two weeks this number was posted in over +700,000 web sites. + +That’s a big outpouring of public disgust with DRM. But it didn’t win +the war, because the publishers changed the key. Not only that: with HD +DVD, this was adequate to break the DRM, but not with Blu-ray. Blu-ray +has an additional level of DRM and so far there is no free software that +can break it, which means that you must regard Blu-ray disks as +something incompatible with your own freedom. They are an enemy with +which no accommodation is possible, at least not with our present level +of knowledge. + +Never accept any product designed to attack your freedom. If you don’t +have the free software to play a DVD, you mustn’t buy or rent any DVDs, +or accept them even as gifts, except for the rare non-encrypted DVDs, +which there are a few of. I actually have a few \[of these\]—I don’t +have any encrypted DVDs, I won’t take them. + +So this is how things stand in video, but we’ve also seen DRM in music. + +For instance, about ten years ago we started to see things that looked +like compact disks, but they weren’t written quite like compact disks. +They didn’t follow the standard. We called them “corrupt disks,” and the +idea of them was that they would play in an audio player, but it was +impossible to read them on a computer. These different methods had +various problems. + +Eventually Sony came up with a clever idea. They put a program on the +disk, so that if you stuck the disk into a computer, the disk would +install the program. This program was designed like a virus to take +control of the system. It’s called a “root kit,” meaning that it has +things in it to break the security of the system so that it can install +the software deep inside the system, and modify various parts of the +system. + +For instance, it modified the command you could use to examine the +system to see if the software was present, so as to disguise itself. It +modified the command you could use to delete some of these files, so +that it wouldn’t really delete them. Now all of this is a serious crime, +but it’s not the only one Sony committed, because the software also +included free software code—code that had been released under the GNU +General Public License. + +Now the GNU GPL is a copyleft license, and that means it says, “Yes, +you’re free to put this code into other things, but when you do, the +entire program that you put things into you must release as free +software under the same license. And you must make the source code +available to users, and to inform them of their rights you must give +them a copy of this license when they get the software.” + +Sony didn’t comply with all that. That’s commercial copyright +infringement, which is a felony. They’re both felonies, but Sony wasn’t +prosecuted because the government understands that the purpose of the +government and the law is to maintain the power of those companies over +us, not to help defend our freedom in any way. + +People got angry and they sued Sony. However, they made a mistake. They +focused their condemnation not on the evil purpose of this scheme, but +only on the secondary evils of the various methods that Sony used. So +Sony settled the lawsuits and promised that in the future, when it +attacks our freedom, it will not do those other things. + +Actually, that particular corrupt disk scheme was not so bad, because if +you were not using Windows it would not affect you at all. Even if you +were using Windows, there’s a key on the keyboard—if you remembered +every time to hold it down, then the disk wouldn’t install the software. +But of course it’s hard to remember that every time; you’re going to +slip up some day. This shows the kind of thing we’ve had to deal with. + +Fortunately music DRM is receding. Even the main record companies sell +downloads without DRM. But we see a renewed effort to impose DRM on +books. + +You see, the publishers want to take away the traditional freedoms of +book readers—freedom to do things such as borrow a book from the public +library, or lend it to a friend; to sell a book to a used book store, or +buy it anonymously paying cash (which is the only way I buy books—we’ve +got to resist the temptations to let Big Brother know everything that +we’re doing.) + +Even the freedom to keep the book as long as you wish, and read it as +many times as you wish, they plan to get rid of. + +The way they do it is with DRM. They knew that so many people read books +and would get angry if these freedoms were taken away that they didn’t +believe they could buy a law specifically to abolish these +freedoms—there would be too much opposition. Democracy is sick, but once +in a while people manage to demand something. So they came up with a +two-stage plan. + +First, take away these freedoms from e-books, and second, convince +people to switch from paper books to e-books. They’ve succeeded with +stage 1. + +In the US they did it with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and in +New Zealand, that was part of the Copyright Act \[of 2008\]; censorship +on software that can break DRM was part of that law. That’s an unjust +provision; it’s got to be repealed. + +The second stage is convince people to switch from printed books to +e-books; that didn’t go so well. + +One publisher in 2001 had the idea they would make their line of e-books +really popular if they started it with my biography. So they found an +author and the author asked me if I’d cooperate, and I said, “Only if +this e-book is published without encryption, without DRM.” The publisher +wouldn’t go along with that, and I just stuck to it—I said no. +Eventually we found another publisher who was willing to do this—in fact +willing to publish the book under a free license giving you the four +freedoms—so the book was then published, and sold a lot of copies on +paper. + +But in any case, e-books failed at the beginning of this decade. People +just didn’t want to read them very much. And I said, “They will try +again.” We saw an amazing number of news articles about electronic ink +(or is it electronic paper, I can never remember which), and it occurred +to me probably the reason there’s so many is the publishers want us to +think about this. They want us to be eager for the next generation of +e-book readers. + +Now they’re upon us. Things like the Sony Shreader (its official name is +the Sony Reader, but if you put on ‘sh’ it explains what it’s designed +to do to your books), and the Amazon Swindle, designed to swindle you +out of your traditional freedoms without your noticing. Of course, they +call it the Kindle which is what it’s going to do to your books. + +The Kindle is an extremely malicious product, almost as malicious as +Microsoft Windows. They both have spy features, they both have Digital +Restrictions Management, and they both have back doors. + +In the case of the Kindle, the only way you can buy a book is to buy it +from Amazon, and Amazon requires you to identify yourself, so they know +everything that you’ve bought. + +Then there is Digital Restrictions Management, so you can’t lend the +book or sell it to a used bookstore, and the library can’t lend it +either. + +And then there’s the back door, which we found out about about three +months ago, because Amazon used it. Amazon sent a command to all the +Kindles to erase a particular book, namely 1984, by George Orwell. Yes, +they couldn’t have picked a more ironic book to erase. So that’s how we +know that Amazon has a back door with which it can erase books remotely. + +What else it can do, who knows? Maybe it’s like Microsoft Windows. Maybe +Amazon can remotely upgrade the software, which means that whatever +malicious things are not in it now, they could put them in it tomorrow. + +This is intolerable—any one of these restrictions is intolerable. They +want to create a world where nobody lends books to anybody anymore. + +Imagine that you visit a friend and there are no books on the shelf. +It’s not that your friend doesn’t read, but his books are all inside a +device, and of course he can’t lend you those books. The only way he +could lend you any one of those books is to lend you his whole library, +which is obviously a ridiculous thing to ask anybody to do. So there +goes friendship for people who love books. + +Make sure that you inform people what this device implies. It means +other readers will no longer be your friends, because you will be acting +like a jerk toward them. Spread the word preemptively. This device is +your enemy. It’s the enemy of everyone who reads. The people who don’t +recognize that are the people who are thinking so short-term that they +don’t see it. It’s our job to help them see beyond the momentary +convenience to the implications of this device. + +I have nothing against distributing books in digital form, if they are +not designed to take away our freedom. Strictly speaking, it is possible +to have an e-book reader: + +- that is not designed to attack you, +- which runs free software and not proprietary software, +- which doesn’t have DRM, +- which doesn’t make people identify yourself to get a book, +- which doesn’t have a back door, \[and\] +- which doesn’t restrict what you can do with the files on + your machine. + +It’s possible, but the big companies really pushing e-books are doing it +to attack our freedom, and we mustn’t stand for that. This is what +governments are doing in cahoots with big business to attack our +freedom, by making copyright harsher and nastier, more restrictive than +ever before. + +But what should they do? Governments should make copyright power less. +Here are my specific proposals. + +First of all, there is the dimension of time. I propose copyright should +last ten years, starting from the date of publication of a work. + +Why from the date of publication? Because before that, we don’t have +copies. It doesn’t matter to us whether we would have been allowed to +copy our copies that we don’t have, so I figure we might as well let the +authors have as much time as it takes to arrange publication, and then +start the clock. + +But why ten years? I don’t know about in this country, but in the US, +the publication cycle has got shorter and shorter. Nowadays almost all +books are remaindered within two years and out-of-print within three. So +ten years is more than three times the usual publication cycle—that +should be plenty comfortable. + +But not everybody agrees. I once proposed this in a panel discussion +with fiction writers, and the award-winning fantasy writer next to me +said, “Ten years? No way. Anything more than five years is intolerable.” +You see, he had a legal dispute with his publisher. His books seemed to +be out of print, but the publisher wouldn’t admit it. The publisher was +using the copyright on his own book to stop him from distributing copies +himself, which he wanted to do so people could read it. + +This is what every artist starts out wanting—wanting to distribute her +work so it will get read and appreciated. Very few make a lot of money. +That tiny fraction face the danger of being morally corrupted, like JK +Rowling. + +JK Rowling, in Canada, got an injunction against people who had bought +her book in a bookstore, ordering them not to read it. So in response I +call for a boycott of Harry Potter books. But I don’t say you shouldn’t +read them; I leave that to the author and the publisher. I just say you +shouldn’t buy them. + +It’s few authors that make enough money that they can be corrupted in +this way. Most of them don’t get anywhere near that, and continue +wanting the same thing they wanted at the outset: they want their work +to be appreciated. + +He wanted to distribute his own book, and copyright was stopping him. He +realized that more than five years of copyright was unlikely to ever do +him any good. + +If people would rather have copyright last five years, I won’t be +against it. I propose ten as a first stab at the problem. Let’s reduce +it to ten years and then take stock for a while, and we could adjust it +after that. I don’t say I think ten years is the exact right number—I +don’t know. + +What about the dimension of breadth? Which activities should copyright +cover? I distinguish three broad categories of works. + +First of all, there are the functional works that you use to do a +practical job in your life. This includes software, recipes, educational +works, reference works, text fonts, and other things you can think of. +These works should be free. + +If you use the work to do a job in your life, then if you can’t change +the work to suit you, you don’t control your life. Once you have changed +the work to suit you, then you’ve got to be free to publish it—publish +your version—because there will be others who will want the changes +you’ve made. + +This leads quickly to the conclusion that users have to have the same +four freedoms \[for all functional works\], not just for software. And +you’ll notice that for recipes, practically speaking, cooks are always +sharing and changing recipes just as if the recipes were free. Imagine +how people would react if the government tried to stamp out so-called +recipe piracy. + +The term “pirate” is pure propaganda. When people ask me what I think of +music piracy, I say, “As far as I know, when pirates attack they don’t +do it by playing instruments badly, they do it with arms. So it’s not +music ‘piracy,’ because piracy is attacking ships, and sharing is as far +as you get from being the moral equivalent of attacking ships.” +Attacking ships is bad, sharing with other people is good, so we should +firmly denounce that propaganda term “piracy” whenever we hear it. + +People might have objected twenty years ago: “If we don’t give up our +freedom, if we don’t let the publishers of these works control us, the +works won’t get made and that will be a horrible disaster.” Now, looking +at the free software community, and all the recipes that circulate, and +reference works like Wikipedia—we are even starting to see free +textbooks being published—we know that that fear is misguided. + +There is no need to despair and give up our freedom thinking that +otherwise the works won’t get made. There are lots of ways to encourage +them to get made if we want more—lots of ways that are consistent with +and respect our freedom. In this category, they should all be free. + +But what about the second category, of works that say what certain +people thought, like memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific +papers,[(2)](#FOOT2) and various other things? To publish a modified +version of somebody else’s statement of what he thought is +misrepresenting \[that\] somebody. That’s not particularly a +contribution to society. + +Therefore it is workable and acceptable to have a somewhat reduced +copyright system where all commercial use is covered by copyright, all +modification is covered by copyright, but everyone is free to +non-commercially redistribute exact copies. + +That freedom is the minimum freedom we must establish for all published +works, because the denial of that freedom is what creates the War on +Sharing—what creates the vicious propaganda that sharing is theft, that +sharing is like being a pirate and attacking ships. Absurdities, but +absurdities backed by a lot of money that has corrupted our governments. +We need to end the War on Sharing; we need to legalize sharing exact +copies of any published work. + +In the second category of works, that’s all we need; we don’t need to +make them free. Therefore I think it’s OK to have a reduced copyright +system which covers commercial use and all modifications. And this will +provide a revenue stream to the authors in more or less the same +(usually inadequate) way as the present system. You’ve got to keep in +mind \[that\] the present system, except for superstars, is usually +totally inadequate. + +What about works of art and entertainment? Here it took me a while to +decide what to think about modifications. + +You see, on one hand, a work of art can have an artistic integrity and +modifying it could destroy that. Of course, copyright doesn’t +necessarily stop works from being butchered that way. Hollywood does it +all the time. On the other hand, modifying the work can be a +contribution to art. It makes possible the folk process which leads to +things which are beautiful and rich. + +Even if we look at named authors only: consider Shakespeare, who +borrowed stories from other works only a few decades old, and did them +in different ways, and made important works of literature. If today’s +copyright law had existed then, that would have been forbidden and those +plays wouldn’t have been written. + +But eventually I realized that modifying a work of art can be a +contribution to art, but it’s not desperately urgent in most cases. If +you had to wait ten years for the copyright to expire, you could wait +that long. Not like the present-day copyright that makes you wait maybe +75 years, or 95 years. In Mexico you might have to wait almost 200 years +in some cases, because copyright in Mexico expires a hundred years after +the author dies. This is insane, but ten years, as I’ve proposed +copyright should last, that people can wait. + +So I propose the same partly reduced copyright that covers commercial +use and modification, but everyone’s got to be free to non-commercially +redistribute exact copies. After ten years it goes into the public +domain, and people can contribute to art by publishing their modified +versions. + +One other thing: if you’re going to take little pieces out of a bunch of +works and rearrange them into something totally different, that should +just be legal, because the purpose of copyright is to promote art, not +to obstruct art. It’s stupid to apply copyright to using snippets like +that—it’s self-defeating. It’s a kind of distortion that you’d only get +when the government is under the control of the publishers of the +existing successful works, and has totally lost sight of its intended +purpose. + +That’s what I propose, and in particular, this means that sharing copies +on the internet must be legal. Sharing is good. Sharing builds the bonds +of society. To attack sharing is to attack society. + +So any time the government proposes some new means to attack people who +share, to stop them from sharing, we have to recognize that this is +evil, not just because the means proposed almost invariably offend basic +ideas of justice. But that’s not a coincidence; the reason is because +the purpose is evil. Sharing is good and the government should encourage +sharing. + +But copyright did after all have a useful purpose. Copyright as a means +to carry out that purpose has a problem now, because it doesn’t fit in +with the technology we use. It interferes with all the vital freedoms +for all the readers, listeners, viewers, and whatever, but the goal of +promoting the arts is still desirable. So in addition to the partly +reduced copyright system, which would continue to be a copyright system, +I propose two other methods. + +One \[works via\] taxes—distribute tax money directly to artists. This +could be a special tax, perhaps on internet connectivity, or it could +come from general revenue, because it won’t be that much money in total, +not if it’s distributed in an efficient way. To distribute it +efficiently to promote the arts means not in linear proportion to +popularity. It should be based on popularity, because we don’t want +bureaucrats to have the discretion to decide which artists to support +and which to ignore, but based on popularity does not imply linear +proportion. + +What I propose is measure the popularity of the various artists, which +you could do through polling (samples) in which nobody is required to +participate, and then take the cube root. The cube root looks like this: +it means basically that \[the payment\] tapers off after a while. + +If superstar A is a thousand times as popular as successful artist B, +with this system A would get ten times as much money as B, not a +thousand times. + +Linearly would give A a thousand times as much as B, which means that if +we wanted B to get enough to live on we’re going to have to make A +tremendously rich. This is wasteful use of the tax money—it shouldn’t be +done. + +But if we make it taper off, then yes, each superstar will get +handsomely more than an ordinary successful artist, but the total of all +the superstars will be a small fraction of the \[total\] money. Most of +the money will go to support a large number of fairly successful +artists, fairly appreciated artists, fairly popular artists. Thus the +system will use money a lot more efficiently than the existing system. + +The existing system is regressive. It actually gives far, far more per +record, for instance, to a superstar than to anybody else. The money is +extremely badly used. The result is we’d actually be paying a lot less +this way. I hope that’s enough to mollify some of these people who have +a knee-jerk hostile reaction to taxes—one that I don’t share, because I +believe in a welfare state. + +I have another suggestion which is voluntary payments. Suppose every +player had a button you could push to send a dollar to the artist who +made the work you’re currently playing or the last one you played. This +money would be delivered anonymously to those artists. I think a lot of +people would push that button fairly often. + +For instance, all of us could afford to push that button once every day, +and we wouldn’t miss that much money. It’s not that much money for us, +I’m pretty sure. Of course, there are poor people who couldn’t afford to +push it ever, and it’s OK if they don’t. We don’t need to squeeze money +out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough people who +are not poor to do the job just fine. I’m sure you’re aware that a lot +of people really love certain art and are really happy to support the +artists. + +An idea just came to me. The player could also give you a certificate of +having supported so-and-so, and it could even count up how many times +you had done it and give you a certificate that says, “I sent so much to +these artists.” There are various ways we could encourage people who +want to do it. + +For instance, we could have a PR campaign which is friendly and kind: +“Have you sent a dollar to some artists today? Why not? It’s only a +dollar—you’ll never miss it and don’t you love what they’re doing? Push +the button!” It will make people feel good, and they’ll think, “Yeah, I +love what I just watched. I’ll send a dollar.” + +This is already starting to work to some extent. There’s a Canadian +singer who used to be called Jane Siberry. She put her music on her web +site and invited people to download it and pay whatever amount they +wished. She reported getting an average of more than a dollar per copy, +which is interesting because the major record companies charge just +under a dollar per copy. By letting people decide whether and how much +to pay, she got more—she got even more per visitor who was actually +downloading something. But this might not even count whether there was +an effect of bringing more people to come, and \[thus\] increasing the +total number that this average was against. + +So it can work, but it’s a pain in the neck under present circumstances. +You’ve got to have a credit card to do it, and that means you can’t do +it anonymously. And you’ve got to go find where you’re going to pay, and +the payment systems for small amounts, they’re not very efficient, so +the artists are only getting half of it. If we set up a good system for +this, it would work far, far better. So these are my two suggestions. + +And in [mecenat-global.org](mecenat-global.org),[(3)](#FOOT3) you can +find another scheme that combines aspects of the two, which was invented +by Francis Muguet and designed to fit in with existing legal systems +better to make it easier to enact. + +Be careful of proposals to “compensate the rights holders,” because when +they say “compensate,” they’re trying to presume that if you have +appreciated a work, you now have a specific debt to somebody, and that +you have to “compensate” that somebody. When they say “rights holders,” +it’s supposed to make you think it’s supporting artists while in fact +it’s going to the publishers—the same publishers who basically exploit +all the artists (except the few that you’ve all heard of, who are so +popular that they have clout). + +We don’t owe a debt; we have nobody that we have to “compensate.” +\[But\] supporting the arts is still a useful thing to do. That was the +motivation for copyright back when copyright fit in with the technology +of the day. Today copyright is a bad way to do it, but it’s still good +to do it other ways that respect our freedom. + +Demand that they change the two evil parts of the New Zealand Copyright +Act. They shouldn’t replace the three strikes punishment,[(4)](#FOOT4) +because sharing is good, and they’ve got to get rid of the censorship +for the software to break DRM. Beware of ACTA—they’re trying to +negotiate a treaty between various countries, for all of these countries +to attack their citizens, and we don’t know how because they won’t tell +us. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright In 2010, the encryption system for digital video output was +definitively cracked. (See Mark Hachman’s “HDCP Master Key Confirmed; +Blu-Ray Content Vulnerable” (September 16 2010), at +<http://pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369280,00.asp>, for more +information.) @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright 2015: I included scientific papers because I thought that +publishing modified versions of someone else’s paper would cause harm; +however, publishing physics and math papers under the Creative Commons +Attribution License on [arXiv.org](arXiv.org) and many libre journals +seems to have no problems. Thus, I subsequently concluded that +scientific papers ought to be free. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright That page is no longer active; please see +[https://stallman.org/mecenat/\ +global-patronage.html](https://stallman.org/mecenat/%3Cbr%3Eglobal-patronage.html) +instead. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright New Zealand had enacted a system of punishment without +trial for internet users accused of copying; then, facing popular +protest, the government did not implement it, and announced a plan to +implement a modified unjust punishment system. The point here was that +they should not proceed to implement a replacement—rather, they should +have no such system. However, the words I used don’t say this clearly. + +@hglue@defaultparindent The New Zealand government subsequently +implemented the punishment scheme more or less as originally planned. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/danger-of-software-patents.md b/docs/danger-of-software-patents.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..099de7f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/danger-of-software-patents.md @@ -0,0 +1,917 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The Danger of Software Patents {#the-danger-of-software-patents .chapter} +================================= + +> This is an unedited transcript of the talk presented by Richard +> Stallman on 8 October 2009 at Victoria University of Wellington, in +> Wellington, New Zealand. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2009, 2010, 2014 Richard Stallman\ + {This transcript was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2009. +This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} I’m most known for starting the +free software movement and leading development of the GNU operating +system—although most of the people who use the system mistakenly believe +it’s Linux and think it was started by somebody else a decade later. But +I’m not going to be speaking about any of that today. I’m here to talk +about a legal danger to all software developers, distributors, and +users: the danger of patents—on computational ideas, computational +techniques, an idea for something you can do on a computer. + +Now, to understand this issue, the first thing you need to realize is +that patent law has nothing to do with copyright law—they’re totally +different. Whatever you learn about one of them, you can be sure it +doesn’t apply to the other. + +So, for example, any time a person makes a statement about “intellectual +property,” that’s spreading confusion, because it’s lumping together not +only these two laws but also at least a dozen others. They’re all +different, and the result is any statement which purports to be about +“intellectual property” is pure confusion—either the person making the +statement is confused, or the person is trying to confuse others. But +either way, whether it’s accidental or malicious, it’s confusion. + +Protect yourself from this confusion by rejecting any statement which +makes use of that term. The only way to make thoughtful comments and +think clear thoughts about any one of these laws is to distinguish it +first from all the others, and talk or think about one particular law, +so that we can understand what it actually does and then form +conclusions about it. So I’ll be talking about patent law, and what +happens in those countries which have allowed patent law to restrict +software. + +So, what does a patent do? A patent is an explicit, government-issued +monopoly on using a certain idea. In the patent there’s a part called +the claims, which describe exactly what you’re not allowed to do +(although they’re written in a way you probably can’t understand). It’s +a struggle to figure out what those prohibitions actually mean, and they +may go on for many pages of fine print. + +So the patent typically lasts for 20 years, which is a fairly long time +in our field. Twenty years ago there was no World Wide Web—a tremendous +amount of the use of computers goes on in an area which wasn’t even +possible to propose 20 years ago. So of course everything that people do +on it is something that’s new since 20 years ago—at least in some aspect +it is new. So if patents had been applied for we’d be prohibited from +doing all of it, and we may be prohibited from doing all of it in +countries that have been foolish enough to have such a policy. + +Most of the time, when people describe the function of the patent +system, they have a vested interest in the system. They may be patent +lawyers, or they may work in the Patent Office, or they may be in the +patent office of a megacorporation, so they want you to like the system. + +The Economist once referred to the patent system as “a time-consuming +lottery.” If you’ve ever seen publicity for a lottery, you understand +how it works: they dwell on the very unlikely probability of winning, +and they don’t talk about the overwhelming likelihood of losing. In this +way, they intentionally and systematically present a biased picture of +what’s likely to happen to you, without actually lying about any +particular fact. + +It’s the same way for the publicity for the patent system: they talk +about what it’s like to walk down the street with a patent in your +pocket—or first of all, what it’s like to get a patent, then what it’s +like to have a patent in your pocket, and every so often you can pull it +out and point it at somebody and say, “Give me your money.” + +To compensate for their bias, I’m going to describe it from the other +side, the victim side—what it’s like for people who want to develop or +distribute or run software. You have to worry that any day someone might +walk up to you and point a patent at you and say, “Give me your money.” + +If you want to develop software in a country that allows software +patents, and you want to work with patent law, what will you have to do? + +You could try to make a list of all the ideas that one might be able to +find in the program that you’re about to write, aside from the fact that +you don’t know that when you start writing the program. \[But\] even +after you finish writing the program you wouldn’t be able to make such a +list. + +The reason is…in the process you conceived of it in one particular +way—you’ve got a mental structure to apply to your design. And because +of that, it will block you from seeing other structures that somebody +might use to understand the same program—because you’re not coming to it +fresh; you already designed it with one structure in mind. Someone else +who sees it for the first time might see a different structure, which +involves different ideas, and it would be hard for you to see what those +other ideas are. But nonetheless they’re implemented in your program, +and those patents could prohibit your program, if those ideas are +patented. + +For instance, suppose there were graphical-idea patents and you wanted +to draw a square. Well, you would realize that if there was a patent on +a bottom edge, it would prohibit your square. You could put “bottom +edge” on the list of all ideas implemented in your drawing. But you +might not realize that somebody else with a patent on bottom corners +could sue you easily also, because he could take your drawing and turn +it by 45 degrees. And now your square is like this, and it has a bottom +corner. + +So you couldn’t make a list of all the ideas which, if patented, could +prohibit your program. + +What you might try to do is find out all the ideas that are patented +that might be in your program. Now you can’t do that actually, because +patent applications are kept secret for at least 18 months; and the +result is the Patent Office could be considering now whether to issue a +patent, and they won’t tell you. And this is not just an academic, +theoretical possibility. + +For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was written, a program for +compressing files using the data compression algorithm, and at that time +there was no patent on that algorithm for compressing files. The author +got the algorithm from an article in a journal. That was when we thought +that the purpose of computer science journals was to publish algorithms +so people could use them. + +He wrote this program, he released it, and in 1985 a patent was issued +on that algorithm. But the patent holder was cunning and didn’t +immediately go around telling people to stop using it. The patent holder +figured, “Let’s let everybody dig their grave deeper.” A few years later +they started threatening people; it became clear we couldn’t use +Compress, so I asked for people to suggest other algorithms we could use +for compressing files. + +And somebody wrote and said, “I developed another data compression +algorithm that works better, I’ve written a program, I’d like to give it +to you.” So we got ready to release it, and a week before it was ready +to be released, I read in The New York Times’ weekly patent column, +which I rarely saw—it’s a couple of times a year I might see it—but just +by luck I saw that someone had gotten a patent for “inventing a new +method of compressing data.” And so I said we had better look at this, +and sure enough it covered the program we were about to release. But it +could have been worse: the patent could have been issued a year later, +or two years later, or three years later, or five years later. + +Anyway, someone else came up with another, even better compression +algorithm, which was used in the program gzip, and just about everybody +who wanted to compress files switched to gzip, so it sounds like a happy +ending. But you’ll hear more later. It’s not entirely so happy. + +So, you can’t find out about the patents that are being considered even +though they may prohibit your work once they come out, but you can find +out about the already issued patents. They’re all published by the +Patent Office. The problem is you can’t read them all, because there are +too many of them. + +In the US I believe there are hundreds of thousands of software patents; +keeping track of them would be a tremendous job. So you’re going to have +to search for relevant patents. And you’ll find a lot of relevant +patents, but you won’t necessarily find them all. + +For instance, in the 80s and 90s, there was a patent on “natural order +recalculation” in spreadsheets. Somebody once asked me for a copy of it, +so I looked in our computer file which lists the patent numbers. And +then I pulled out the drawer to get the paper copy of this patent and +xeroxed it and sent it to him. And when he got it, he said, “I think you +sent me the wrong patent. This is something about compilers.” So I +thought maybe our file has the wrong number in it. I looked in it again, +and sure enough it said, “A method for compiling formulas into object +code.” So I started to read it to see if it was indeed the wrong patent. +I read the claims, and sure enough it was the natural order +recalculation patent, but it didn’t use those terms. It didn’t use the +term “spreadsheet.” In fact, what the patent prohibited was dozens of +different ways of implementing topological sort—all the ways they could +think of. But I don’t think it used the term “topological sort.” + +So if you were writing a spreadsheet and you tried to find relevant +patents by searching, you might have found a lot of patents. But you +wouldn’t have found this one until you told somebody, “Oh, I’m working +on a spreadsheet,” and he said, “Oh, did you know those other companies +that are making spreadsheets are getting sued?” Then you would have +found out. + +Well, you can’t find all the patents by searching, but you can find a +lot of them. And then you’ve got to figure out what they mean, which is +hard, because patents are written in tortuous legal language which is +very hard to understand the real meaning of. So you’re going to have to +spend a lot of time talking with an expensive lawyer explaining what you +want to do in order to find out from the lawyer whether you’re allowed +to do it. + +Even the patent holders often can’t recognize just what their patents +mean. For instance, there’s somebody named Paul Heckel who released a +program for displaying a lot of data on a small screen, and based on a +couple of the ideas in that program he got a couple of patents. + +I once tried to find a simple way to describe what claim 1 of one of +those patents covered. I found that I couldn’t find any simpler way of +saying it than what was in the patent itself; and that sentence, I +couldn’t manage to keep it all in my mind at once, no matter how hard I +tried. + +And Heckel couldn’t follow it either, because when he saw HyperCard, all +he noticed was it was nothing like his program. It didn’t occur to him +that the way his patent was written it might prohibit HyperCard; but his +lawyer had that idea, so he threatened Apple. And then he threatened +Apple’s customers, and eventually Apple made a settlement with him which +is secret, so we don’t know who really won. And this is just an +illustration of how hard it is for anybody to understand what a patent +does or doesn’t prohibit. + +In fact, I once gave this speech and Heckel was in the audience. And at +this point he jumped up and said, “That’s not true, I just didn’t know +the scope of my protection.” And I said, “Yeah, that’s what I said,” at +which point he sat down and that was the end of my experience being +heckled by Heckel. If I had said no, he probably would have found a way +to argue with me. + +Anyway, after a long, expensive conversation with a lawyer, the lawyer +will give you an answer like this: + +> If you do something in this area, you’re almost certain to lose a +> lawsuit; if you do something in this area, there’s a considerable +> chance of losing a lawsuit; and if you really want to be safe you’ve +> got to stay out of this area. But there’s a sizeable element of chance +> in the outcome of any lawsuit. + +So now that you have clear, predictable rules for doing business, what +are you actually going to do? Well, there are three things that you +could do to deal with the issue of any particular patent. One is to +avoid it, another is to get a license for it, and the third is to +invalidate it. So I’ll talk about these one by one. + +First, there’s the possibility of avoiding the patent, which means, +don’t implement what it prohibits. Of course, if it’s hard to tell what +it prohibits, it might be hard to tell what would suffice to avoid it. + +A couple of years ago Kodak sued Sun \[for\] using a patent for +something having to do with object-oriented programming, and Sun didn’t +think it was infringing that patent. But the court decided it was; and +when other people look at that patent they haven’t the faintest idea +whether that decision was right or not. No one can tell what that patent +does or doesn’t cover, but Sun had to pay hundreds of millions of +dollars because of violating a completely incomprehensible law. + +Sometimes you can tell what you need to avoid, and sometimes what you +need to avoid is an algorithm. + +For instance, I saw a patent for something like the fast Fourier +transform, but it ran twice as fast. Well, if the ordinary FFT is fast +enough for your application then that’s an easy way to avoid this other +one. And most of the time that would work. Once in a while you might be +trying to do something where it runs doing FFT all the time, and it’s +just barely fast enough using the faster algorithm. And then you can’t +avoid it, although maybe you could wait a couple of years for a faster +computer. But that’s going to be rare. Most of the time that patent will +to be easy to avoid. + +On the other hand, a patent on an algorithm may be impossible to avoid. +Consider the LZW data compression algorithm. Well, as I explained, we +found a better data compression algorithm, and everybody who wanted to +compress files switched to the program gzip which used the better +algorithm. And the reason is, if you just want to compress the file and +uncompress it later, you can tell people to use this program to +uncompress it; then you can use any program with any algorithm, and you +only care how well it works. + +But LZW is used for other things, too; for instance the PostScript +language specifies operators for LZW compression and LZW uncompression. +It’s no use having another, better algorithm because it makes a +different format of data. They’re not interoperable. If you compress it +with the gzip algorithm, you won’t be able to uncompress it using LZW. +So no matter how good your other algorithm is, and no matter what it is, +it just doesn’t enable you to implement PostScript according to the +specs. + +But I noticed that users rarely ask their printers to compress things. +Generally the only thing they want their printers to do is to +uncompress; and I also noticed that both of the patents on the LZW +algorithm were written in such a way that if your system can only +uncompress, it’s not forbidden. These patents were written so that they +covered compression, and they had other claims covering both compression +and uncompression; but there was no claim covering only uncompression. +So I realized that if we implement only the uncompression for LZW, we +would be safe. And although it would not satisfy the specification, it +would please the users sufficiently; it would do what they actually +needed. So that’s how we barely squeaked by avoiding the two patents. + +Now there is GIF format, for images. That uses the LZW algorithm also. +It didn’t take long for people to define another image format, called +PNG, which stands for “PNG’s Not GIF.” I think it uses the gzip +algorithm. And we started saying to people, “Don’t use GIF format, it’s +dangerous. Switch to PNG.” And the users said, “Well, maybe some day, +but the browsers don’t implement it yet,” and the browser developers +said, “We may implement it someday, but there’s not much demand from +users.” + +Well, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on—GIF was a de facto standard. +In effect, asking people to switch to a different format, instead of +their de facto standard, is like asking everyone in New Zealand to speak +Hungarian. People will say, “Well, yeah, I’ll learn to speak it after +everyone else does.” And so we never succeeded in asking people to stop +using GIF, even though one of those patent holders was going around to +operators of web sites, threatening to sue them unless they could prove +that all of the GIFs on the site were made with authorized, licensed +software. + +So GIF was a dangerous trap for a large part of our community. We +thought we had an alternative to GIF format, namely JPEG, but then +somebody said, “I was just looking through my portfolio of patents”—I +think it was somebody that just bought patents and used them to threaten +people—and he said, “and I found that one of them covers JPEG format.” + +Well, JPEG was not a de facto standard, it’s an official standard, +issued by a standards committee; and the committee had a lawyer too. +Their lawyer said he didn’t think that this patent actually covered JPEG +format. + +So who’s right? Well, this patent holder sued a bunch of companies, and +if there was a decision, it would have said who was right. But I haven’t +heard about a decision; I’m not sure if there ever was one. I think they +settled, and the settlement is almost certainly secret, which means that +it didn’t tell us anything about who’s right. + +These are fairly lightweight cases: one patent on JPEG, two patents on +the LZW algorithm used in GIF. Now you might wonder how come there are +two patents on the same algorithm? It’s not supposed to happen, but it +did. And the reason is that the patent examiners can’t possibly take the +time to study every pair of things they might need to study and compare, +because they’re not allowed to take that much time. And because +algorithms are just mathematics, there’s no way you can narrow down +which applications and patents you need to compare. + +You see, in physical engineering fields, they can use the physical +nature of what’s going on to narrow things down. For instance, in +chemical engineering, they can say, “What are the substances going in? +What are the substances coming out?” If two different \[patent\] +applications are different in that way, then they’re not the same +process so you don’t need to worry. But the same math can be represented +in ways that can look very different, and until you study them both +together, you don’t realize they’re talking about the same thing. And, +because of this, it’s quite common to see the same thing get patented +multiple times \[in software\]. + +Remember that program that was killed by a patent before we released it? +Well, that algorithm got patented twice also. In one little field we’ve +seen it happen in two cases that we ran into—the same algorithm being +patented twice. Well, I think my explanation tells you why that happens. + +But one or two patents is a lightweight case. What about MPEG2, the +video format? I saw a list of over 70 patents covering that, and the +negotiations to arrange a way for somebody to license all those patents +took longer than developing the standard itself. The JPEG committee +wanted to develop a follow-on standard, and they gave up. They said +there were too many patents; there was no way to do it. + +Sometimes it’s a feature that’s patented, and the only way to avoid that +patent is not to implement that feature. For instance, the users of the +word processor Xywrite once got a downgrade in the mail, which removed a +feature. The feature was that you could define a list of abbreviations. +For instance, if you define “exp” as an abbreviation for “experiment,” +then if you type “exp-space” or “exp-comma,” the “exp” would change +automatically to “experiment.” + +Then somebody who had a patent on this feature threatened them, and they +concluded that the only thing they could do was to take the feature out. +And so they sent all the users a downgrade. + +But they also contacted me, because my Emacs editor had a feature like +that starting from the late 70s. And it was described in the Emacs +manual, so they thought I might be able to help them invalidate that +patent. Well, I’m happy to know I’ve had at least one patentable idea in +my life, but I’m unhappy that someone else patented it. + +Fortunately, in fact, that patent was eventually invalidated, and partly +on the strength of the fact that I had published using it earlier. But +in the meantime they had had to remove this feature. + +Now, to remove one or two features may not be a disaster. But when you +have to remove 50 features, you could do it, but people are likely to +say, “This program’s no good; it’s missing all the features I want.” So +it may not be a solution. And sometimes a patent is so broad that it +wipes out an entire field, like the patent on public-key encryption, +which in fact put public-key encryption basically off limits for about +ten years. + +So that’s the option of avoiding the patent—often possible, but +sometimes not, and there’s a limit to how many patents you can avoid. + +What about the next possibility, of getting a license for the patent? + +Well, the patent holder may not offer you a license. It’s entirely up to +him. He could say, “I just want to shut you down.” I once got a letter +from somebody whose family business was making casino games, which were +of course computerized, and he had been threatened by a patent holder +who wanted to make his business shut down. He sent me the patent. Claim +1 was something like “a network with a multiplicity of computers, in +which each computer supports a multiplicity of games, and allows a +multiplicity of game sessions at the same time.” + +Now, I’m sure in the 1980s there was a university that set up a room +with a network of workstations, and each workstation had some kind of +windowing facility. All they had to do was to install multiple games and +it would be possible to display multiple game sessions at once. This is +so trivial and uninteresting that nobody would have bothered to publish +an article about doing it. No one would have been interested in +publishing an article about doing it, but it was worth patenting it. If +it had occurred to you that you could get a monopoly on this trivial +thing, then you could shut down your competitors with it. + +But why does the Patent Office issue so many patents that seem absurd +and trivial to us? + +It’s not because the patent examiners are stupid, it’s because they’re +following a system, and the system has rules, and the rules lead to this +result. + +You see, if somebody has made a machine that does something once, and +somebody else designs a machine that will do the same thing, but N +times, for us that’s a `for`-loop, but for the Patent Office that’s an +invention. If there are machines that can do A, and there are machines +that can do B, and somebody designs a machine that can do A or B, for us +that’s an `if-then-else` statement, but for the Patent Office that’s an +invention. So they have very low standards, and they follow those +standards; and the result is patents that look absurd and trivial to us. +Whether they’re legally valid I can’t say. But every programmer who sees +them laughs. + +In any case, I was unable to suggest anything he could do to help +himself, and he had to shut down his business. But most patent holders +will offer you a license. It’s likely to be rather expensive. + +But there are some software developers that find it particularly easy to +get licenses, most of the time. Those are the megacorporations. In any +field the megacorporations generally own about half the patents, and +they cross-license each other, and they can make anybody else +cross-license if he’s really producing anything. The result is that they +end up painlessly with licenses for almost all the patents. + +IBM wrote an article in its house magazine, Think magazine—I think it’s +issue 5, 1990—about the benefit IBM got from its almost 9,000 US patents +at the time (now it’s up to 45,000 or more). They said that one of the +benefits was that they collected money, but the main benefit, which they +said was perhaps an order of magnitude greater, was “getting access to +the patents of others,” namely cross-licensing. + +What this means is since IBM, with so many patents, can make almost +everybody give them a cross-license, IBM avoids almost all the grief +that the patent system would have inflicted on anybody else. So that’s +why IBM wants software patents. That’s why the megacorporations in +general want software patents, because they know that by +cross-licensing, they will have a sort of exclusive club on top of a +mountain peak. And all the rest of us will be down here, and there’s no +way we can get up there. You know, if you’re a genius, you might start +up a small company and get some patents, but you’ll never get into IBM’s +league, no matter what you do. + +Now a lot of companies tell their employees, “Get us patents so we can +defend ourselves” and they mean, “use them to try to get +cross-licensing,” but it just doesn’t work well. It’s not an effective +strategy if you’ve got a small number of patents. + +Suppose you’ve got three patents. One points there, one points there, +and one points there, and somebody over there points a patent at you. +Well, your three patents don’t help you at all, because none of them +points at him. On the other hand, sooner or later, somebody in the +company is going to notice that this patent is actually pointing at some +people, and \[the company\] could threaten them and squeeze money out of +them—never mind that those people didn’t attack this company. + +So if your employer says to you, “We need some patents to defend +ourselves, so help us get patents,” I recommend this response: + +> Boss, I trust you and I’m sure you would only use those patents to +> defend the company if it’s attacked. But I don’t know who’s going to +> be the CEO of this company in five years. For all I know, it might get +> acquired by Microsoft. So I really can’t trust the company’s word to +> only use these patents for defense unless I get it in writing. Please +> put it in writing that any patents I provide for the company will only +> be used for self-defense and collective security, and not for +> repression, and then I’ll be able to get patents for the company with +> a clean conscience. + +It would be most interesting to raise this not just in private with your +boss, but also on the company’s discussion list. + +The other thing that could happen is that the company could fail and its +assets could be auctioned off, including the patents; and the patents +will be bought by someone who means to use them to do something nasty. + +This cross-licensing practice is very important to understand, because +this is what punctures the argument of the software patent advocates who +say that software patents are needed to protect the starving genius. +They give you a scenario which is a series of unlikelihoods. + +So let’s look at it. According to this scenario, there’s a brilliant +designer of whatever, who’s been working for years by himself in his +attic coming up with a better way to do whatever it is. And now that +it’s ready, he wants to start a business and mass-produce this thing; +and because his idea is so good his company will inevitably succeed— +except for one thing: the big companies will compete with him and take +all his market the away. And because of this, his business will almost +certainly fail, and then he will starve. + +Well, let’s look at all the unlikely assumptions here. + +First of all, that he comes up with this idea working by himself. That’s +not very likely. In a high-tech field, most progress is made by people +working in a field, doing things and talking with people in the field. +But I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, not that one thing by itself. + +But anyway the next supposition is that he’s going to start a business +and that it’s going to succeed. Well, just because he’s a brilliant +engineer doesn’t mean that he’s any good at running a business. Most new +businesses fail; more than 95 percent of them, I think, fail within a +few years. So that’s probably what’s going to happen to him, no matter +what. + +OK, let’s assume that in addition to being a brilliant engineer who came +up with something great by himself, he’s also talented at running +businesses. If he has a knack for running businesses, then maybe his +business won’t fail. After all, not all new businesses fail, there are a +certain few that succeed. Well, if he understands business, then instead +of trying to go head to head with large companies, he might try to do +things that small companies are better at and have a better chance of +succeeding. He might succeed. But let’s suppose it fails anyway. If he’s +so brilliant and has a knack for running businesses, I’m sure he won’t +starve, because somebody will want to give him a job. + +So a series of unlikelihoods—it’s not a very plausible scenario. But +let’s look at it anyway. + +Because where they go from there is to say the patent system will +“protect” our starving genius, because he can get a patent on this +technique. And then when IBM wants to compete with him, he says, “IBM, +you can’t compete with me, because I’ve got this patent,” and IBM says, +“Oh, no, not again!” + +Well, here’s what really happens. + +IBM says, “Oh, how nice, you have a patent. Well, we have this patent, +and this patent, and this patent, and this patent, and this patent, all +of which cover other ideas implemented in your product, and if you think +you can fight us on all those, we’ll pull out some more. So let’s sign a +cross-license agreement, and that way nobody will get hurt.” Now since +we’ve assumed that our genius understands business, he’s going to +realize that he has no choice. He’s going to sign the cross-license +agreement, as just about everybody does when IBM demands it. And then +this means that IBM will get “access” to his patent, meaning IBM would +be free to compete with him just as if there were no patents, which +means that the supposed benefit that they claim he would get by having +this patent is not real. He won’t get this benefit. + +The patent might “protect” him from competition from you or me, but not +from IBM—not from the very megacorporations which the scenario says are +the threat to him. You know in advance that there’s got to be a flaw in +this reasoning when people who are lobbyists for megacorporations +recommend a policy supposedly because it’s going to protect their small +competitors from them. If it really were going to do that, they wouldn’t +be in favor of it. But this explains why \[software patents\] won’t do +it. + +Even IBM can’t always do this, because there are companies that we refer +to as patent trolls or patent parasites, and their only business is +using patents to squeeze money out of people who really make something. + +Patent lawyers tell us that it’s really wonderful to have patents in +your field, but they don’t have patents in their field. There are no +patents on how to send or write a threatening letter, no patents on how +to file a lawsuit, and no patents on how to persuade a judge or jury, so +even IBM can’t make the patent trolls cross-license. But IBM figures, +“Our competition will have to pay them too; this is just part of the +cost of doing business, and we can live with it.” IBM and the other +megacorporations figure that the general dominion over all activity that +they get from their patents is good for them, and paying off the trolls +they can live with. So that’s why they want software patents. + +There are also certain software developers who find it particularly +difficult to get a patent license, and those are the developers of free +software. The reason is that the usual patent license has conditions we +can’t possibly fulfill, because usual patent licenses demand a payment +per copy. But when software gives users the freedom to distribute and +make more copies, we have no way to count the copies that exist. + +If someone offered me a patent license for a payment of one-millionth of +a dollar per copy, the total amount of money I’d have to pay maybe is in +my pocket now. Maybe it’s \$50, but I don’t know if it’s \$50, or \$49, +or what, because there’s no way I can count the copies that people have +made. + +A patent holder doesn’t have to demand a payment per copy; a patent +holder could offer you a license for a single lump sum, but those lump +sums tend to be big, like US\$100,000. + +And the reason that we’ve been able to develop so much +freedom-respecting software is \[that\] we can develop software without +money, but we can’t pay a lot of money without money. If we’re forced to +pay for the privilege of writing software for the public, we won’t be +able to do it very much. + +That’s the possibility of getting a license for the patent. The other +possibility is to invalidate the patent. If the country considers +software patents to be basically valid, and allowed, the only question +is whether that particular patent meets the criteria. It’s only useful +to go to court if you’ve got an argument to make that might prevail. + +What would that argument be? You have to find evidence that, years ago, +before the patent was applied for, people knew about the same idea. And +you’d have to find things today that demonstrate that they knew about it +publicly at that time. So the dice were cast years ago, and if they came +up favorably for you, and if you can prove that fact today, then you +have an argument to use to try to invalidate the patent. And it might +work. + +It might cost you a lot of money to go through this case, and as a +result, a probably invalid patent is a very frightening weapon to be +threatened with if you don’t have a lot of money. There are people who +can’t afford to defend their rights—lots of them. The ones who can +afford it are the exception. + +These are the three things that you might be able to do about each +patent that prohibits something in your program. The thing is, whether +each one is possible depends on different details of the circumstances, +so some of the time, none of them is possible; and when that happens, +your project is dead. + +But lawyers in most countries tell us, “Don’t try to find the patents in +advance,” and the reason is that the penalty for infringement is bigger +if you knew about the patent. So what they tell you is “Keep your eyes +shut. Don’t try to find out about the patents, just go blindly taking +your design decisions, and hope.” + +And of course, with each single design decision, you probably don’t step +on a patent. Probably nothing happens to you. But there are so many +steps you have to take to get across the minefield, it’s very unlikely +you will get through safely. And of course, the patent holders don’t all +show up at the same time, so you don’t know how many there are going to +be. + +The patent holder of the natural order recalculation patent was +demanding 5 percent of the gross sales of every spreadsheet. You could +imagine paying for a few such licenses, but what happens when patent +holder number 20 comes along, and wants you to pay out the last +remaining 5 percent? And then what happens when patent holder number 21 +comes along? + +People in business say that this scenario is amusing but absurd, because +your business would fail long before you got there. They told me that +two or three such licenses would make your business fail. So you’d never +get to 20. They show up one by one, so you never know how many more +there are going to be. + +Software patents are a mess. They’re a mess for software developers, but +in addition they’re a restriction on every computer user because +software patents restrict what you can do on your computer. + +This is very different from patents, for instance, on automobile +engines. These only restrict companies that make cars; they don’t +restrict you and me. But software patents do restrict you and me, and +everybody who uses computers. So we can’t think of them in purely +economic terms; we can’t judge this issue purely in economic terms. +There’s something more important at stake. + +But even in economic terms, the system is self-defeating, because its +purpose is supposed to be to promote progress. Supposedly by creating +this artificial incentive for people to publish ideas, it’s going to +help the field progress. But all it does is the exact opposite, because +the big job in software is not coming up with ideas, it’s implementing +thousands of ideas together in one program. And software patents +obstruct that, so they’re economically self-defeating. + +And there’s even economic research showing that this is so—showing how +in a field with a lot of incremental innovation, a patent system can +actually reduce investment in R&D. And of course, it also obstructs +development in other ways. So even if we ignore the injustice of +software patents, even if we were to look at it in the narrow economic +terms that are usually proposed, it’s still harmful. + +People sometimes respond by saying that “People in other fields have +been living with patents for decades, and they’ve gotten used to it, so +why should you be an exception?” + +Now, that question has an absurd assumption. It’s like saying, “Other +people get cancer, why shouldn’t you?” I think every time someone +doesn’t get cancer, that’s good, regardless of what happened to the +others. That question is absurd because of its presupposition that +somehow we all have a duty to suffer the harm done by patents. + +But there is a sensible question buried inside it, and that sensible +question is “What differences are there between various fields that +might affect what is good or bad patent policy in those fields?” + +There is an important basic difference between fields in regard to how +many patents are likely to prohibit or cover parts of any one product. + +Now we have a naive idea in our minds which I’m trying to get rid of, +because it’s not true. And it’s that on any one product there is one +patent, and that patent covers the overall design of that product. So if +you design a new product, it can’t be patented already, and you will +have an opportunity to get “the patent” on that product. + +That’s not how things work. In the 1800s, maybe they did, but not now. +In fact, fields fall on a spectrum of how many patents \[there are\] per +product. The beginning of the spectrum is one, but no field is like that +today; fields are at various places on this spectrum. + +The field that’s closest to that is pharmaceuticals. A few decades ago, +there really was one patent per pharmaceutical, at least at any time, +because the patent covered the entire chemical formula of that one +particular substance. Back then, if you developed a new drug, you could +be sure it wasn’t already patented by somebody else and you could get +the one patent on that drug. + +But that’s not how it works now. Now there are broader patents, so now +you could develop a new drug, and you’re not allowed to make it because +somebody has a broader patent which covers it already. + +And there might even be a few such patents covering your new drug +simultaneously, but there won’t be hundreds. The reason is, our ability +to do biochemical engineering is so limited that nobody knows how to +combine so many ideas to make something that’s useful in medicine. If +you can combine a couple of them you’re doing pretty well at our level +of knowledge. But other fields involve combining more ideas to make one +thing. + +At the other end of the spectrum is software, where we can combine more +ideas into one usable design than anybody else, because our field is +basically easier than all other fields. I’m presuming that the +intelligence of people in our field is the same as that of people in +physical engineering. It’s not that we’re fundamentally better than they +are; it’s that our field is fundamentally easier, because we’re working +with mathematics. + +A program is made out of mathematical components, which have a +definition, whereas physical objects don’t have a definition. The matter +does what it does, so through the perversity of matter, your design may +not work the way it “should” have worked. And that’s just tough. You +can’t say that the matter has a bug in it, and the physical universe +should get fixed. \[Whereas\] we \[programmers\] can make a castle that +rests on a mathematically thin line, and it stays up because nothing +weighs anything. + +There’re so many complications you have to cope with in physical +engineering that we don’t have to worry about. + +For instance, when I put an `if`-statement inside of a `while`-loop, + +- I don’t have to worry that if this `while`-loop repeats at the wrong + rate, the `if`-statement might start to vibrate and it might + resonate and crack; +- I don’t have to worry that if it resonates much faster—you know, + millions of times per second—that it might generate radio frequency + signals that might induce wrong values in other parts of the + program; +- I don’t have to worry that corrosive fluids from the environment + might seep in between the `if`-statement and the `while`-statement + and start eating away at them until the signals don’t pass anymore; +- I don’t have to worry about how the heat generated by my + `if`-statement is going to get out through the `while`-statement so + that it doesn’t make the `if`-statement burn out; and +- I don’t have to worry about how I would take out the broken + `if`-statement if it does crack, burn, or corrode, and replace it + with another `if`-statement to make the program run again. + +For that matter, I don’t have to worry about how I’m going to insert the +`if`-statement inside the `while`-statement every time I produce a copy +of the program. I don’t have to design a factory to make copies of my +program, because there are various general commands that will make +copies of anything. + +If I want to make copies on CD, I just have to write a master; and +there’s one program I can \[use to\] make a master out of anything, +write any data I want. I can make a master CD and write it and send it +off to a factory, and they’ll duplicate whatever I send them. I don’t +have to design a different factory for each thing I want to duplicate. + +Very often with physical engineering you have to do that; you have to +design products for manufacturability. Designing the factory may even be +a bigger job than designing the product, and then you may have to spend +millions of dollars to build the factory. So with all of this trouble, +you’re not going to be able to put together so many different ideas in +one product and have it work. + +A physical design with a million nonrepeating different design elements +is a gigantic project. A program with a million different design +elements, that’s nothing. It’s a few hundred thousand lines of code, and +a few people will write that in a few years, so it’s not a big deal. So +the result is that the patent system weighs proportionately heavier on +us than it does on people in any other field who are being held back by +the perversity of matter. + +A lawyer did a study of one particular large program, namely the kernel +Linux, which is used together with the GNU operating system that I +launched. This was five years ago now; he found 283 different US +patents, each of which appeared to prohibit some computation done +somewhere in the code of Linux. At the time I saw an article saying that +Linux was 0.25 percent of the whole system. So by multiplying 300 by 400 +we can estimate the number of patents that would prohibit something in +the whole system as being around 100,000. This is a very rough estimate +only, and no more accurate information is available, since trying to +figure it out would be a gigantic task. + +Now this lawyer did not publish the list of patents, because that would +have endangered the developers of Linux the kernel, putting them in a +position where the penalties if they were sued would be greater. He +didn’t want to hurt them; he wanted to demonstrate how bad this problem +is, of patent gridlock. + +Programmers can understand this immediately, but politicians usually +don’t know much about programming; they usually imagine that patents are +basically much like copyrights, only somehow stronger. They imagine that +since software developers are not endangered by the copyrights on their +work, that they won’t be endangered by the patents on their work either. +They imagine that, since when you write a program you have the +copyright, \[therefore likewise\] if you write a program you have the +patents also. This is false—so how do we give them a clue what patents +would really do? What they really do in countries like the US? + +I find it’s useful to make an analogy between software and symphonies. +Here’s why it’s a good analogy. + +A program or symphony combines many ideas. A symphony combines many +musical ideas. But you can’t just pick a bunch of ideas and say “Here’s +my combination of ideas, do you like it?” Because in order to make them +work you have to implement them all. You can’t just pick musical ideas +and list them and say, “Hey, how do you like this combination?” You +can’t hear that \[list\]. You have to write notes which implement all +these ideas together. + +The hard task, the thing most of us wouldn’t be any good at, is writing +all these notes to make the whole thing sound good. Sure, lots of us +could pick musical ideas out of a list, but we wouldn’t know how to +write a good-sounding symphony to implement those ideas. Only some of us +have that talent. That’s the thing that limits you. I could probably +invent a few musical ideas, but I wouldn’t know how to use them to any +effect. + +So imagine that it’s the 1700s, and the governments of Europe decide +that they want to promote the progress of symphonic music by +establishing a system of musical idea patents, so that any musical idea +described in words could be patented. + +For instance, using a particular sequence of notes as a motif could be +patented, or a chord progression could be patented, or a rhythmic +pattern could be patented, or using certain instruments by themselves +could be patented, or a format of repetitions in a movement could be +patented. Any sort of musical idea that could be described in words +would have been patentable. + +Now imagine that it’s 1800 and you’re Beethoven, and you want to write a +symphony. You’re going to find it’s much harder to write a symphony you +don’t get sued for than to write one that sounds good, because you have +to thread your way around all the patents that exist. If you complained +about this, the patent holders would say, “Oh, Beethoven, you’re just +jealous because we had these ideas first. Why don’t you go and think of +some ideas of your own?” + +Now Beethoven had ideas of his own. The reason he’s considered a great +composer is because of all of the new ideas that he had, and he actually +used. And he knew how to use them in such a way that they would work, +which was to combine them with lots of well-known ideas. He could put a +few new ideas into a composition together with a lot of old and +uncontroversial ideas. And the result was a piece that was +controversial, but not so much so that people couldn’t get used to it. + +To us, Beethoven’s music doesn’t sound controversial; I’m told it was, +when it was new. But because he combined his new ideas with a lot of +known ideas, he was able to give people a chance to stretch a certain +amount. And they could, which is why to us those ideas sound just fine. +But nobody, not even a Beethoven, is such a genius that he could +reinvent music from zero, not using any of the well-known ideas, and +make something that people would want to listen to. And nobody is such a +genius he could reinvent computing from zero, not using any of the +well-known ideas, and make something that people want to use. + +When the technological context changes so frequently, you end up with a +situation where what was done 20 years ago is totally inadequate. Twenty +years ago there was no World Wide Web. So, sure, people did a lot of +things with computers back then, but what they want to do today are +things that work with the World Wide Web. And you can’t do that using +only the ideas that were known 20 years ago. And I presume that the +technological context will continue to change, creating fresh +opportunities for somebody to get patents that give the shaft to the +whole field. + +Big companies can even do this themselves. For instance, a few years ago +Microsoft decided to make a phony open standard for documents and to get +it approved as a standard by corrupting the International Standards +Organization, which they did. But they designed it using something that +Microsoft had patented. Microsoft is big enough that it can start with a +patent, design a format or protocol to use that patented idea (whether +it’s helpful or not), in such a way that there’s no way to be compatible +unless you use that same idea too. And then Microsoft can make that a de +facto standard with or without help from corrupted standards bodies. +Just by its weight it can push people into using that format, and that +basically means that they get a stranglehold over the whole world. So we +need to show the politicians what’s really going on here. We need to +show them why this is bad. + +Now I’ve heard it said that the reason New Zealand is considering +software patents is that one large company wants to be given some +monopolies. To restrict everyone in the country so that one company will +make more money is the absolute opposite of statesmanship. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.md b/docs/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..267f48c --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. E-books Must Increase Our Freedom, Not Decrease It {#e-books-must-increase-our-freedom-notdecrease-it .chapter} +===================================================== + +I love The Jehovah Contract, and I’d like everyone else to love it too. +I have lent it out at least six times over the years. Printed books let +us do that. + +I couldn’t do that with most commercial e-books. It’s “not allowed.” And +if I tried to disobey, the software in e-readers has malicious features +called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM, for short) to restrict +reading, so it simply won’t work. The e-books are encrypted so that only +proprietary software with malicious functionality can display them. + +Many other habits that we readers are accustomed to are “not allowed” +for e-books. With the Amazon “Kindle” (for which “Swindle”[(1)](#FOOT1) +is a more fitting name), to take one example, users can’t buy a book +anonymously with cash. “Kindle” books are typically available from +Amazon only, and Amazon makes users identify themselves. Thus, Amazon +knows exactly which books each user has read. In a country such as the +UK, where you can be prosecuted for possessing a forbidden +book,[(2)](#FOOT2) this is more than hypothetically Orwellian. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule See also “The Danger of E-Books” +(@pageref{E-Books Danger}), and please consider joining our mailing +about the dangers of e-books, at +<http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html>. @medskip +@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 2012 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://guardian.co.uk>, on +17 April 2012, as “Technology Should Help Us Share, Not Constrain Us,” +with some surprise editing. This version incorporates parts of that +editing while restoring parts of the original text and is part of +@fsfsthreecite} + +Furthermore, you can’t sell the e-book after you read it (if Amazon has +its way, the used book stores where I have passed many an afternoon will +be history). You can’t give it to a friend either, because according to +Amazon you never really owned it. Amazon requires users to sign an +end-user license agreement (EULA) which says so. + +You can’t even be sure it will still be in your machine tomorrow. People +reading 1984 in the “Kindle” had an Orwellian experience: their e-books +vanished right before their eyes, as Amazon used a malicious software +feature called a “back door” to remotely delete them (virtual +book-burning; is that what “Kindle” means?). But don’t worry; Amazon +promised never to do this again, except by order of the state. + +With software, either the users control the program (making such +software Libre or Free[(3)](#FOOT3)) or the program controls its users +(non-Libre). Amazon’s e-book policies imitate the distribution policies +of non-Libre software, but that’s not the only relationship between the +two. The malicious software features described above[(4)](#FOOT4) are +imposed on users via software that’s not Libre. If a Libre program had +malicious features like those, some users skilled at programming would +remove them, then provide the corrected version to all the other users. +Users can’t change non-Libre software, which makes it an ideal +instrument for exercising power over the public.[(5)](#FOOT5) + +Any one of these encroachments on our freedom is reason aplenty to say +no. If these policies were limited to Amazon, we’d bypass them, but the +other e-book dealers’ policies are roughly similar. + +What worries me most is the prospect of losing the option of printed +books. The Guardian has announced “digital-only reads”: in other words, +books available only at the price of freedom. I will not read any book +at that price. Five years from now, will unauthorized copies be the only +ethically acceptable copies for most books? + +It doesn’t have to be that way. With anonymous payment on the internet, +paying for downloads of non-DRM non-EULA e-books would respect our +freedom. Physical stores could sell such e-books for cash, like digital +music on CDs—still available even though the music industry is +aggressively pushing DRM-restrictive services such as Spotify. Physical +CD stores face the burden of an expensive inventory, but physical e-book +stores could write copies onto your USB memory stick, the only inventory +being memory sticks to sell if you need. + +The reason publishers give for their restrictive e-books practices is to +stop people from sharing copies. They say this is for the sake of the +authors; but even if it did serve the authors’ interests (which for +quite famous authors it may), it could not justify DRM, EULAs or the +Digital Economy Act which persecutes readers for sharing. In practice, +the copyright system does a bad job of supporting authors aside from the +most popular ones. Other authors’ principal interest is to be better +known, so sharing their work benefits them as well as readers. Why not +switch to a system that does the job better and is compatible with +sharing? + +A tax on memories and internet connectivity, along the general lines of +what most EU countries do, could do the job well if three points are got +right. The money should be collected by the state and distributed +according to law, not given to a private collecting society; it should +be divided among all authors, and we mustn’t let companies take any of +it from them; and the distribution of money should be based on a sliding +scale, not in linear proportion to popularity. I suggest using the cube +root of each author’s popularity: if A is eight times as popular as B, A +gets twice B’s amount (not eight times B’s amount). This would support +many fairly popular writers adequately instead of making a few stars +richer. + +Another system is to give each e-reader a button to send some small sum +(perhaps 25 pence in the UK) to the author. + +Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy. (I mean +non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.) So sharing ought to be +legal, and preventing sharing is no excuse to make e-books into +handcuffs for readers. If e-books mean that readers’ freedom must either +increase or decrease, we must demand the increase. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Why Call It the Swindle?” (@pageref{Swindle}) for more +on this. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright Ben Quinn, “Man in London Charged with Terrorism Offences +over Al-Qaida Document,” 4 April 2012, +<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/04/al-qaida-terrorism>. @end +raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “What Is Free Software?” (@pageref{Definition}) for the +full definition of free software. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html> for an +evolving list of these threats. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See my articles “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) and “The Problem Is Software Controlled +by Its Developer,” at [http://gnu.org/\ +philosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.html](http://gnu.org/%3Cbr%3Ephilosophy/the-root-of-this-problem.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/).\ diff --git a/docs/edu-schools.md b/docs/edu-schools.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4fe3b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/edu-schools.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software {#why-schools-should-exclusively-use-freesoftware .chapter} +=================================================== + +Educational activities (including schools) have a moral duty to teach +only free software. + +All computer users ought to insist on free software: it gives users the +freedom to control their own computers—with proprietary software, the +program does what its owner or developer wants it to do, not what the +user wants it to do. Free software also gives users the freedom to +cooperate with each other, to lead an upright life. These reasons apply +to schools as they do to everyone. However, the purpose of this article +is to present the additional reasons that apply specifically to +education. + +Free software can save schools money, but this is a secondary benefit. +Savings are possible because free software gives schools, like other +users, the freedom to copy and redistribute the software; the school +system can give a copy to every school, and each school can install the +program in all its computers, with no obligation to pay for doing so. + +This benefit is useful, but we firmly refuse to give it first place, +because it is shallow compared to the important ethical issues at stake. +Moving schools to free software is more than a way to make education a +little “better”: it is a matter of doing good education instead of bad +education. So let’s consider the deeper issues. + +Schools have a social mission: to teach students to be citizens of a +strong, capable, independent, cooperating and free society. They should +promote the use of free software just as they promote conservation and +voting. By teaching students free software, they can graduate citizens +ready to live in a free digital society. This will help society as a +whole escape from being dominated by megacorporations. + +In contrast, to teach a nonfree program is implanting dependence, which +goes counter to the schools’ social mission. Schools should never do +this. + +Why, after all, do some proprietary software developers offer gratis +copies of their nonfree programs to schools? Because they want to *use* +the schools to implant dependence on their products, like tobacco +companies distributing gratis cigarettes to school +children.[(1)](#FOOT1)@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip +Copyright © 2003, 2009, 2014 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2003. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite}They will not give gratis copies to +these students once they’ve graduated, nor to the companies that they go +to work for. Once you’re dependent, you’re expected to pay, and future +upgrades may be expensive. + +Free software permits students to learn how software works. Some +students, natural-born programmers, on reaching their teens yearn to +learn everything there is to know about their computer and its software. +They are intensely curious to read the source code of the programs that +they use every day. + +Proprietary software rejects their thirst for knowledge: it says, “The +knowledge you want is a secret—learning is forbidden!” Proprietary +software is the enemy of the spirit of education, so it should not be +tolerated in a school, except as an object for reverse engineering. + +Free software encourages everyone to learn. The free software community +rejects the “priesthood of technology,” which keeps the general public +in ignorance of how technology works; we encourage students of any age +and situation to read the source code and learn as much as they want to +know. + +Schools that use free software will enable gifted programming students +to advance. How do natural-born programmers learn to be good +programmers? They need to read and understand real programs that people +really use. You learn to write good, clear code by reading lots of code +and writing lots of code. Only free software permits this. + +How do you learn to write code for large programs? You do that by +writing lots of changes in existing large programs. Free Software lets +you do this; proprietary software forbids this. Any school can offer its +students the chance to master the craft of programming, but only if it +is a free software school. + +The deepest reason for using free software in schools is for moral +education. We expect schools to teach students basic facts and useful +skills, but that is only part of their job. The most fundamental task of +schools is to teach good citizenship, including the habit of helping +others. In the area of computing, this means teaching people to share +software. Schools, starting from nursery school, should tell their +students, “If you bring software to school, you must share it with the +other students. You must show the source code to the class, in case +someone wants to learn. Therefore bringing nonfree software to class is +not permitted, unless it is for reverse-engineering work.” + +Of course, the school must practice what it preaches: it should bring +only free software to class (except objects for reverse-engineering), +and share copies including source code with the students so they can +copy it, take it home, and redistribute it further. + +Teaching the students to use free software, and to participate in the +free software community, is a hands-on civics lesson. It also teaches +students the role model of public service rather than that of tycoons. +All levels of school should use free software. + +If you have a relationship with a school—if you are a student, a +teacher, an employee, an administrator, a donor, or a parent—it’s +your responsibility to campaign for the school to migrate to free +software. If a private request doesn’t achieve the goal, raise the issue +publicly in those communities; that is the way to make more people aware +of the issue and find allies for the campaign. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was fined \$15m in 2002 for +handing out free samples of cigarettes at events attended by children. +See +<http://bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/health/tobaccotrial/usa.htm>. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/fdl.md b/docs/fdl.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9edb091 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fdl.md @@ -0,0 +1,498 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. GNU Free Documentation License {#gnu-free-documentation-license .chapter} +================================= + +Version 1.3, 3 November 2008 + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.display} | +| | Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, | +| | 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. | +| | http://fsf.org/ | +| | | +| | Everyone is permitted to copy and di | +| | stribute verbatim copies | +| | of this license document, but changi | +| | ng it is not allowed. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +1. **PREAMBLE** + + The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other + functional and useful document *free* in the sense of freedom: to + assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, + with or without modifying it, either commercially + or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the + author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not + being considered responsible for modifications made by others. + + This License is a kind of “copyleft”, which means that derivative + works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It + complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft + license designed for free software. + + We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for + free software, because free software needs free documentation: a + free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms + that the software does. But this License is not limited to software + manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject + matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend + this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction + or reference. + +2. **APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS** + + This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, + that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can + be distributed under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants + a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use + that work under the conditions stated herein. The “Document”, below, + refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a + licensee, and is addressed as “you”. You accept the license if you + copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission + under copyright law. + + A “Modified Version” of the Document means any work containing the + Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with + modifications and/or translated into another language. + + A “Secondary Section” is a named appendix or a front-matter section + of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the + publishers or authors of the Document to the Document’s overall + subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall + directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in + part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain + any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical + connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, + commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position + regarding them. + + The “Invariant Sections” are certain Secondary Sections whose titles + are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice + that says that the Document is released under this License. If a + section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is + not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain + zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any + Invariant Sections then there are none. + + The “Cover Texts” are certain short passages of text that are + listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that + says that the Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover + Text may be at most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most + 25 words. + + A “Transparent” copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, + represented in a format whose specification is available to the + general public, that is suitable for revising the document + straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed + of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely + available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text + formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats + suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise + Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been + arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers + is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for + any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not “Transparent” is + called “Opaque”. + + Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain + ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML + or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming + simple HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. + Examples of transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. + Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and + edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which + the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the + machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word + processors for output purposes only. + + The “Title Page” means, for a printed book, the title page itself, + plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the + material this License requires to appear in the title page. For + works in formats which do not have any title page as such, “Title + Page” means the text near the most prominent appearance of the + work’s title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text. + + The “publisher” means any person or entity that distributes copies + of the Document to the public. + + A section “Entitled XYZ” means a named subunit of the Document whose + title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses + following text that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ + stands for a specific section name mentioned below, such as + “Acknowledgements”, “Dedications”, “Endorsements”, or “History”.) To + “Preserve the Title” of such a section when you modify the Document + means that it remains a section “Entitled XYZ” according to + this definition. + + The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice + which states that this License applies to the Document. These + Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in + this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other + implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has + no effect on the meaning of this License. + +3. **VERBATIM COPYING** + + You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either + commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the + copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License + applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you + add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may + not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or + further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you + may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a + large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in + section 3. + + You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, + and you may publicly display copies. + +4. **COPYING IN QUANTITY** + + If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have + printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the + Document’s license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the + copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover + Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on + the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify + you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present + the full title with all words of the title equally prominent + and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. + Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve + the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be + treated as verbatim copying in other respects. + + If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit + legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as + fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto + adjacent pages. + + If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering + more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable + Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with + each Opaque copy a computer-network location from which the general + network-using public has access to download using public-standard + network protocols a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free + of added material. If you use the latter option, you must take + reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque + copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain + thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after + the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through + your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public. + + It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of + the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, + to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of + the Document. + +5. **MODIFICATIONS** + + You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under + the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release + the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified + Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing + distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever + possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the + Modified Version: + + 1. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title + distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous + versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the + History section of the Document). You may use the same title as + a previous version if the original publisher of that version + gives permission. + 2. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or + entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the + Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal + authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has + fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement. + 3. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the + Modified Version, as the publisher. + 4. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. + 5. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications + adjacent to the other copyright notices. + 6. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license + notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version + under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the + Addendum below. + 7. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant + Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document’s + license notice. + 8. Include an unaltered copy of this License. + 9. Preserve the section Entitled “History”, Preserve its Title, and + add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, + and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the + Title Page. If there is no section Entitled “History” in the + Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and + publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add + an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the + previous sentence. + 10. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for + public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and + likewise the network locations given in the Document for + previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the + “History” section. You may omit a network location for a work + that was published at least four years before the Document + itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to + gives permission. + 11. For any section Entitled “Acknowledgements” or “Dedications”, + Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section + all the substance and tone of each of the contributor + acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein. + 12. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered + in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the + equivalent are not considered part of the section titles. + 13. Delete any section Entitled “Endorsements”. Such a section may + not be included in the Modified Version. + 14. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled + “Endorsements” or to conflict in title with any + Invariant Section. + 15. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers. + + If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or + appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no + material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate + some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their + titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version’s + license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other + section titles. + + You may add a section Entitled “Endorsements”, provided it contains + nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various + parties—for example, statements of peer review or that the text has + been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of + a standard. + + You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and + a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the + list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of + Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or + through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document + already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added + by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on + behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, + on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the + old one. + + The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this + License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to + assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version. + +6. **COMBINING DOCUMENTS** + + You may combine the Document with other documents released under + this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for + modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all + of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, + unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined + work in its license notice, and that you preserve all their + Warranty Disclaimers. + + The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and + multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a + single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same + name but different contents, make the title of each such section + unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the + original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a + unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the + list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the + combined work. + + In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled “History” + in the various original documents, forming one section Entitled + “History”; likewise combine any sections Entitled + “Acknowledgements”, and any sections Entitled “Dedications”. You + must delete all sections Entitled “Endorsements.” + +7. **COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS** + + You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other + documents released under this License, and replace the individual + copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy + that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the + rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents + in all other respects. + + You may extract a single document from such a collection, and + distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a + copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this + License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of + that document. + +8. **AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS** + + A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate + and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage + or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the copyright + resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights + of the compilation’s users beyond what the individual works permit. + When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not + apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves + derivative works of the Document. + + If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these + copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half + of the entire aggregate, the Document’s Cover Texts may be placed on + covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the + electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in + electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that + bracket the whole aggregate. + +9. **TRANSLATION** + + Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may + distribute translations of the Document under the terms of + section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires + special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include + translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the + original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a + translation of this License, and all the license notices in the + Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also + include the original English version of this License and the + original versions of those notices and disclaimers. In case of a + disagreement between the translation and the original version of + this License or a notice or disclaimer, the original version + will prevail. + + If a section in the Document is Entitled “Acknowledgements”, + “Dedications”, or “History”, the requirement (section 4) to Preserve + its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the + actual title. + +10. **TERMINATION** + + You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document + except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt + otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and + will automatically terminate your rights under this License. + + However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your + license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) + provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and + finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the + copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some + reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. + + Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is + reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the + violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have + received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from + that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days + after your receipt of the notice. + + Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the + licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you + under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not + permanently reinstated, receipt of a copy of some or all of the same + material does not give you any rights to use it. + +11. **FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE** + + The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of + the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new + versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may + differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See + <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/>. + + Each version of the License is given a distinguishing + version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered + version of this License “or any later version” applies to it, you + have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that + specified version or of any later version that has been published + (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document + does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose + any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free + Software Foundation. If the Document specifies that a proxy can + decide which future versions of this License can be used, that + proxy’s public statement of acceptance of a version permanently + authorizes you to choose that version for the Document. + +12. **RELICENSING** + + “Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site” (or “MMC Site”) means any + World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also + provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A + public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A + “Massive Multiauthor Collaboration” (or “MMC”) contained in the site + means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site. + + “CC-BY-SA” means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 + license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit + corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, + California, as well as future copyleft versions of that license + published by that same organization. + + “Incorporate” means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or + in part, as part of another Document. + + An MMC is “eligible for relicensing” if it is licensed under this + License, and if all works that were first published under this + License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated + in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or + invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November + 1, 2008. + + The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the + site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, + 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing. + +ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents {#addendum-how-to-use-this-license-for-your-documents .heading} +---------------------------------------------------- + +To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of +the License in the document and put the following copyright and license +notices just after the title page: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | Copyright (C) year your name. | +| | Permission is granted to copy, distr | +| | ibute and/or modify this document | +| | under the terms of the GNU Free Docu | +| | mentation License, Version 1.3 or | +| | any later version published by the F | +| | ree Software Foundation; with | +| | no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cove | +| | r Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. | +| | A copy of the license is included in | +| | the section entitled | +| | ``GNU Free Documentation License''. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts, +replace the “with…Texts.” line with this: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | with the Invariant Sections bein | +| | g list their titles, with | +| | the Front-Cover Texts being list | +| | , and with the Back-Cover Texts | +| | being list. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other +combination of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the +situation. + +If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we +recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free +software license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit +their use in free software. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/foreword-v1.md b/docs/foreword-v1.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f07794f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/foreword-v1.md @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +Foreword to the First Edition {#foreword-to-the-first-edition .unnumbered} +============================= + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This foreword was originally published, in 2002, as the introduction +to the first edition. This, the original version, is part of +@fsfsthreecite} Every generation has its philosopher—a writer or an +artist who captures the imagination of a time. Sometimes these +philosophers are recognized as such; often it takes generations before +the connection is made real. But recognized or not, a time gets marked +by the people who speak its ideals, whether in the whisper of a poem, or +the blast of a political movement. + +Our generation has a philosopher. He is not an artist, or a professional +writer. He is a programmer. Richard Stallman began his work in the labs +of MIT, as a programmer and architect building operating system +software. He has built his career on a stage of public life, as a +programmer and an architect founding a movement for freedom in a world +increasingly defined by “code.” + +“Code” is the technology that makes computers run. Whether inscribed in +software or burned in hardware, it is the collection of instructions, +first written in words, that directs the functionality of machines. +These machines—computers—increasingly define and control our life. They +determine how phones connect, and what runs on TV. They decide whether +video can be streamed across a broadband link to a computer. They +control what a computer reports back to its manufacturer. These machines +run us. Code runs these machines. + +What control should we have over this code? What understanding? What +freedom should there be to match the control it enables? What power? + +These questions have been the challenge of Stallman’s life. Through his +works and his words, he has pushed us to see the importance of keeping +code “free.” Not free in the sense that code writers don’t get paid, but +free in the sense that the control coders build be transparent to all, +and that anyone have the right to take that control, and modify it as he +or she sees fit. This is “free software”; “free software” is one answer +to a world built in code. + +“Free.” Stallman laments the ambiguity in his own term. There’s nothing +to lament. Puzzles force people to think, and this term “free” does this +puzzling work quite well. To modern American ears, “free software” +sounds utopian, impossible. Nothing, not even lunch, is free. How could +the most important words running the most critical machines running the +world be “free.” How could a sane society aspire to such an ideal? + +Yet the odd clink of the word “free” is a function of us, not of the +term. “Free” has different senses, only one of which refers to “price.” +A much more fundamental sense of “free” is the “free,” Stallman says, in +the term “free speech,” or perhaps better in the term “free labor.” Not +free as in costless, but free as in limited in its control by others. +Free software is control that is transparent, and open to change, just +as free laws, or the laws of a “free society,” are free when they make +their control knowable, and open to change. The aim of Stallman’s “free +software movement” is to make as much code as it can transparent, and +subject to change, by rendering it “free.” + +The mechanism of this rendering is an extraordinarily clever device +called “copyleft” implemented through a license called GPL. Using the +power of copyright law, “free software” not only assures that it remains +open, and subject to change, but that other software that takes and uses +“free software” (and that technically counts as a “derivative”) must +also itself be free. If you use and adapt a free software program, and +then release that adapted version to the public, the released version +must be as free as the version it was adapted from. It must, or the law +of copyright will be violated. + +“Free software,” like free societies, has its enemies. Microsoft has +waged a war against the GPL, warning whoever will listen that the GPL is +a “dangerous” license. The dangers it names, however, are largely +illusory. Others object to the “coercion” in GPL’s insistence that +modified versions are also free. But a condition is not coercion. If it +is not coercion for Microsoft to refuse to permit users to distribute +modified versions of its product Office without paying it (presumably) +millions, then it is not coercion when the GPL insists that modified +versions of free software be free too. + +And then there are those who call Stallman’s message too extreme. But +extreme it is not. Indeed, in an obvious sense, Stallman’s work is a +simple translation of the freedoms that our tradition crafted in the +world before code. “Free software” would assure that the world governed +by code is as “free” as our tradition that built the world before code. + +For example: A “free society” is regulated by law. But there are limits +that any free society places on this regulation through law: No society +that kept its laws secret could ever be called free. No government that +hid its regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our +tradition. Law controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And +law is visible only when its terms are knowable and controllable by +those it regulates, or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, +legislatures). + +This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think +about the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their +clients to advance their clients’ interests. Sometimes that interest is +advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers +write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges. +These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain +law can stand consistently with a constitution. + +All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman +means. Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments +are transparent (which is different from saying they are good) and the +reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers. +The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be +copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The “source code” +for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for +anyone to take. And take lawyers do—for it is a measure of a great brief +that it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened +before. The source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it. + +This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn’t +starve lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs +even though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. +The lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the +crafting is not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn’t demand +such work without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later +work added to the earlier. + +We could imagine a legal practice that was different—briefs and +arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not +the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one +else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule. + +We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it +“free.” Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better +or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as +free. The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more +than efficient application. Instead, openness and transparency are the +constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be +added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software code +should be no less. + +Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more productive. +But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and incentives do +not depend upon perfect control over the products created. Like jazz, or +novels, or architecture, the law gets built upon the work that went +before. This adding and changing is what creativity always is. And a +free society is one that assures that its most important resources +remain free in just this sense. + +This book collects the writing and lectures of Richard Stallman in a +manner that will make their subtlety and power clear. The essays span a +wide range, from copyright to the history of the free software movement. +They include many arguments not well known, and among these, an +especially insightful account of the changed circumstances that render +copyright in the digital world suspect. They will serve as a resource +for those who seek to understand the thought of this most powerful +man—powerful in his ideas, his passion, and his integrity, even if +powerless in every other way. They will inspire others who would take +these ideas, and build upon them. + +I don’t know Stallman well. I know him well enough to know he is a hard +man to like. He is driven, often impatient. His anger can flare at +friend as easily as foe. He is uncompromising and persistent; patient in +both. + +Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of +code—when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like government, must +be transparent to be free—then we will look back at this uncompromising +and persistent programmer and recognize the vision he has fought to make +real: the vision of a world where freedom and knowledge survives the +compiler. And we will come to see that no man, through his deeds or +words, has done as much to make possible the freedom that this next +society could have. + +We have not earned that freedom yet. We may well fail in securing it. +But whether we succeed or fail, in these essays is a picture of what +that freedom could be. And in the life that produced these words and +works, there is inspiration for anyone who would, like Stallman, fight +to create this freedom. + +LAWRENCE LESSIG + +@lessigbio + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/foreword-v3.md b/docs/foreword-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..74341ef --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/foreword-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +Foreword to the Third Edition {#foreword-to-the-third-edition .unnumbered} +============================= + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This is the foreword to @fsfsthreecite} + +A love letter to Richard Stallman, by Jacob Appelbaum\ + @smallskip We live in information societies where machines intermediate +our lives. + +Software and hardware are as important to our information age as the +internet itself. Free Software is the political theory born from the +mind of a revolutionary who believes that, just as we should have +control over our own lives, we should also be able to understand and +control the machines that are extensions of ourselves. This theory, as +supported by the Free Software Foundation, has become a practice and a +tradition for millions of people over the last three decades. + +Free Software as a political theory acknowledges the role of software +and hardware systems in our societies. Critiquing past and present +systems is necessary. We may find ourselves unable to understand or +modify these systems. We become beholden to others in ways that produce +injustices and are themselves an injustice. The outcomes of these +systems are not always obvious, particularly when one is forced into +using them, and especially when they are normalized and branded as the +standard. Free Software as a practice is not merely a critique: it is an +alternative that provides liberty, resting on free standards, freely +available to all. + +Free Software is a paradigm shift where we are at liberty to understand +and learn from those who have come before us, where we are free to grow +and share, to learn from mistakes, to benefit as we learn, and to share +those benefits with everyone. When we use copyleft, we ensure that all +future users of our work get the same liberty. Free Software ensures +that future generations will also be able to decode entire histories of +data. It ensures not only our liberties, but theirs as well. + +In times of mass surveillance, Free Software brings much needed +transparency and with it verifiability. Free Software enables us to +encrypt, to ensure integrity, to authorize, and to anonymize ourselves. +In a world of ever increasing privatization, we find in Free Software a +pillar of communal action towards free societies. The benefits of Free +Software are impossible to fully enumerate as they vary as much as the +benefits of liberty itself. Advancing the cause of Free Software is +never ending, like all struggles for justice, and requires eternal +vigilance. Advancing the cause of Free Software is difficult, and those +advocating and implementing Free Software are often carrying essential +ideas forward against all odds. + +The efforts invested in Free Software are not merely about knowledge, +they are about empowerment: empowerment to study, empowerment to modify, +empowerment to share, and empowerment to enable sharing with others. +Commitment to liberty in an information age requires a refusal to +compromise on the core principles of Free Software, with a commitment +and honesty that demands sacrifice. Many may refuse this burden, working +only to enrich themselves in the present moment; others will work to +increase the breadth and depth of human knowledge. Implemented as Free +Software, we find a model of sustainability and long-term vision that +increases not only knowledge but practical direct ability freely shared +for all without exception. This is a worthy cause and its thoughtfulness +has already enabled all of us; from the mundane to the most +extraordinary, Free Software is involved. + +Richard Stallman is the revolutionary and theorist who has given the +world Free Software. His essays cover topics that have been essential +reading for decades, widely read and understood by people creating +systems for our information age and beyond. He has dedicated his life to +the liberation of humanity, and this book explains how we might each +help with this cause of liberation. + +JACOB APPELBAUM + +@appelbaumbio + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/free-doc.md b/docs/free-doc.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ced678c --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/free-doc.md @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation {#why-free-software-needs-freedocumentation .chapter} +============================================= + +The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the +software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in +these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come with full +manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software package; +when an important free software package does not come with a free +manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today. + +Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got a +copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked Perl +users about alternatives, they told me that there were better +introductory manuals—but those were not free. + +Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for +O’Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive terms—no +copying, no modification, source files not available—which exclude them +from the free software community. + +That wasn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to our +community’s great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary manual +publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their manuals +since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell me about a +manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help the GNU +Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to explain that he +had signed a contract with a publisher that would restrict it so that we +cannot use it. + +Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we +can ill afford to lose manuals this way. + +Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not +price. The problem with these manuals was not that O’Reilly Associates +charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is fine. (The Free +Software Foundation sells printed copies of free GNU manuals, +too.[(1)](#FOOT1)) But GNU manuals are available in source code form, +while these manuals are available only on paper. GNU manuals come with +permission to copy and modify; the Perl manuals do not. These +restrictions are the problems. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1996–2007, +2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +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 redistribution) must be permitted, +so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program, on line or +on paper. 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. The issues +for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. 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 manual +which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the +job, or more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch +if they change the program, does not fill our community’s needs. + +While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some kinds +of limits on the method of modification 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. (Some +GNU manuals have them.) + +These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical +matter, 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 through all the usual media, +through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do block the +community, the manual is not free, and so we need another manual. + +Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another manual +when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many users think +that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they don’t see the need to +write a free manual. They do not see that the free operating system has +a gap that needs filling. + +Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some have +not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something to +change that. + +Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same reason +so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they judge in +purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion. These people +are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions spring from +values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for those of us +who do value freedom. + +Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals to +proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary manuals +are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help GNU by +writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that he must +above all make it free. + +We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted +manuals instead of proprietary ones.[(2)](#FOOT2) One way you can help +this is to check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, +and prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See <http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/> and\ + <http://gnu.org/doc/doc.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/doc/other-free-books.html> for a list +of free books available from other publishers. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/free-hardware-designs.md b/docs/free-hardware-designs.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14841df --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/free-hardware-designs.md @@ -0,0 +1,484 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs {#free-hardware-and-free-hardware-designs .chapter} +========================================== + +> To what extent do the ideas of free software extend to hardware? Is it +> a moral obligation to make our hardware designs free, just as it is to +> make our software free? Does maintaining our freedom require rejecting +> hardware made from nonfree designs? + +### Definitions {#definitions .subheading} + +*Free software* is a matter of freedom, not price; broadly speaking, it +means that users are free to use the software and to copy and +redistribute the software, with or without changes. More precisely, the +definition is formulated in terms of the four essential +freedoms.[(1)](#FOOT1) To emphasize that “free” refers to freedom, not +price, we often use the French or Spanish word “libre” along with +“free.” + +Applying the same concept directly to hardware, *free hardware* means +hardware that users are free to use and to copy and redistribute with or +without changes. However, there are no copiers for hardware, aside from +keys, DNA, and plastic objects’ exterior shapes. Most hardware is made +by fabrication from some sort of design. The design comes before the +hardware. + +Thus, the concept we really need is that of a *free hardware design.* +That’s simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design +(i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with +or without changes. The design must provide the same four freedoms that +define free software. + +Then we can refer to hardware made from a free design as “free +hardware,” or “free-design hardware” to avoid possible misunderstanding. + +People first encountering the idea of free software often think it means +you can get a copy gratis. Many free programs are available for zero +price, since it costs you nothing to download your own copy, but that’s +not what “free” means here. (In fact, some spyware programs such as +Flash Player and Angry Birds are gratis although they are not free.) +Saying “libre” along with “free” helps clarify the point.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2015 Richard +Stallman\ + {Most of this article was published in two parts on the [Wired](Wired) +web site, as “Why We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs” (Wired, +11 March 2015, +<http://wired.com/2015/03/need-free-digital-hardware-designs>) and +“Hardware Designs Should Be Free. Here’s How to Do It.” (Wired, +18 March 2015, +<http://wired.com/2015/03/richard-stallman-how-to-make-hardware-designs-free>).\ + It was published on <http://gnu.org> in 2015. This version is part of +@fsfsthreecite} + +For hardware, this confusion tends to go in the other direction; +hardware costs money to produce, so commercially made hardware won’t be +gratis (unless it is a loss-leader or a tie-in), but that does not +prevent its design from being free/libre. Things you make in your own 3D +printer can be quite cheap, but not exactly gratis since you will have +to pay for the raw materials. In ethical terms, the freedom issue trumps +the price issue totally, since a device that denies freedom to its users +is worth less than nothing. + +The terms “open hardware” and “open source hardware” are used by some +with the same concrete meaning as “free hardware,” but those terms +downplay freedom as an issue. They were derived from the term “open +source software,” which refers more or less to free software but without +talking about freedom or presenting the issue as a matter of right or +wrong.[(3)](#FOOT3) To underline the importance of freedom, we make a +point of referring to freedom whenever it is pertinent; since “open” +fails to do that, let’s not substitute it for “free.” + +### Hardware and Software {#hardware-and-software .subheading} + +Hardware and software are fundamentally different. A program, even in +compiled executable form, is a collection of data which can be +interpreted as instruction for a computer. Like any other digital work, +it can be copied and changed using a computer. A copy of a program has +no inherent physical form or embodiment. + +By contrast, hardware is a physical structure and its physicality is +crucial. While the hardware’s design might be represented as data, in +some cases even as a program, the design is not the hardware. A design +for a CPU can’t execute a program. You won’t get very far trying to type +on a design for a keyboard or display pixels on a design for a screen. + +Furthermore, while you can use a computer to modify or copy the hardware +design, a computer can’t convert the design into the physical structure +it describes. That requires fabrication equipment. + +### The Boundary between Hardware and Software {#the-boundary-between-hardware-and-software .subheading} + +What is the boundary, in digital devices, between hardware and software? +It follows from the definitions. Software is the operational part of a +device that can be copied and changed in a computer; hardware is the +operational part that can’t be. This is the right way to make the +distinction because it relates to the practical consequences. + +There is a gray area between hardware and software that contains +firmware that *can* be upgraded or replaced, but is not meant ever to be +upgraded or replaced once the product is sold. In conceptual terms, the +gray area is rather narrow. In practice, it is important because many +products fall in it. We can treat that firmware as hardware with a small +stretch. + +Some have said that preinstalled firmware programs and +Field-Programmable Gate Array chips (FPGAs) “blur the boundary between +hardware and software,” but I think that is a misinterpretation of the +facts. Firmware that is installed during use is software; firmware that +is delivered inside the device and can’t be changed is software by +nature, but we can treat it as if it were a circuit. As for FPGAs, the +FPGA itself is hardware, but the gate pattern that is loaded into the +FPGA is a kind of firmware. + +Running free gate patterns on FPGAs could potentially be a useful method +for making digital devices that are free at the circuit level. However, +to make FPGAs usable in the free world, we need free development tools +for them. The obstacle is that the format of the gate pattern file that +gets loaded into the FPGA is secret. For many years there was no model +of FPGA for which those files could be produced without nonfree +(proprietary) tools. + +As of 2015, free software tools are available for programming the +Lattice iCE40,[(4)](#FOOT4) a common model of FPGA, from input written +in a hardware description language (HDL). It is also possible to compile +C programs and run them on the Xilinx Spartan 6 LX9 FPGA with free +tools,[(5)](#FOOT5) but those do not support HDL input. We recommend +that you reject other FPGA models until they too are supported by free +tools. + +As for the HDL code itself, it can act as software (when it is run on an +emulator or loaded into an FPGA) or as a hardware design (when it is +realized in immutable silicon or a circuit board). + +### The Ethical Question for 3D Printers {#the-ethical-question-for-3d-printers .subheading} + +Ethically, software must be free;[(6)](#FOOT6) a nonfree program is an +injustice. Should we take the same view for hardware designs? + +We certainly should, in the fields that 3D printing (or, more generally, +any sort of personal fabrication) can handle. Printer patterns to make a +useful, practical object (i.e., functional rather than decorative) +*must* be free because they are works made for practical use. Users +deserve control over these works, just as they deserve control over the +software they use. Distributing a nonfree functional object design is as +wrong as distributing a nonfree program. + +Be careful to choose 3D printers that work with exclusively free +software; the Free Software Foundation endorses such +printers.[(7)](#FOOT7) Some 3D printers are made from free hardware +designs, but MakerBot’s hardware designs are nonfree.[(8)](#FOOT8) + +### Must We Reject Nonfree Digital Hardware? {#must-we-reject-nonfree-digital-hardware .subheading} + +Is a nonfree digital[(9)](#FOOT9) hardware design an injustice? Must we, +for our freedom’s sake, reject all digital hardware made from nonfree +designs, as we must reject nonfree software? + +Due to the conceptual parallel between hardware designs and software +source code, many hardware hackers are quick to condemn nonfree hardware +designs just like nonfree software. I disagree because the circumstances +for hardware and software are different. + +Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the printing +press: it lends itself to mass production in a factory. It is more like +copying books in 1950 than like copying software today. + +Freedom to copy and change software is an ethical imperative because +those activities are feasible for those who use software: the equipment +that enables you to use the software (a computer) is also sufficient to +copy and change it. Today’s mobile computers are too weak to be good for +this, but anyone can find a computer that’s powerful enough. + +Moreover, a computer suffices to download and run a version changed by +someone else who knows how, even if you are not a programmer. Indeed, +nonprogrammers download software and run it every day. This is why free +software makes a real difference to nonprogrammers. + +How much of this applies to hardware? Not everyone who can use digital +hardware knows how to change a circuit design, or a chip design, but +anyone who has a PC has the equipment needed to do so. Thus far, +hardware is parallel to software, but next comes the big difference. + +You can’t build and run a circuit design or a chip design in your +computer. Constructing a big circuit is a lot of painstaking work, and +that’s once you have the circuit board. Fabricating a chip is not +feasible for individuals today; only mass production can make them cheap +enough. With today’s hardware technology, users can’t download and run +John H Hacker’s modified version of a digital hardware design, as they +could run John S Hacker’s modified version of a program. Thus, the four +freedoms don’t give users today collective control over a hardware +design as they give users collective control over a program. That’s +where the reasoning showing that all software must be free fails to +apply to today’s hardware technology. + +In 1983 there was no free operating system, but it was clear that if we +had one, we could immediately use it and get software freedom. All that +was missing was the code for one. + +In 2014, if we had a free design for a CPU chip suitable for a PC, +mass-produced chips made from that design would not give us the same +freedom in the hardware domain. If we’re going to buy a product mass +produced in a factory, this dependence on the factory causes most of the +same problems as a nonfree design. For free designs to give us hardware +freedom, we need future fabrication technology. + +We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make +chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with +transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that future +we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we +will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who +know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then +apply to nonfree hardware designs too. + +That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need +to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle. + +### We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs {#we-need-free-digital-hardware-designs .subheading} + +Although we need not reject digital hardware made from nonfree designs +in today’s circumstances, we need to develop free designs and should use +them when feasible. They provide advantages today, and in the future +they may be the only way to use free software. + +Free hardware designs offer practical advantages. Multiple companies can +fabricate one, which reduces dependence on a single vendor. Groups can +arrange to fabricate them in quantity. Having circuit diagrams or HDL +code makes it possible to study the design to look for errors or +malicious functionalities (it is known that the NSA has procured +malicious weaknesses in some computing hardware). Furthermore, free +designs can serve as building blocks to design computers and other +complex devices, whose specs will be published and which will have fewer +parts that could be used against us. + +Free hardware designs may become usable for some parts of our computers +and networks, and for embedded systems, before we are able to make +entire computers this way. + +Free hardware designs may become essential even before we can fabricate +the hardware personally, if they become the only way to avoid nonfree +software. As common commercial hardware is increasingly designed to +subjugate users, it becomes increasingly incompatible with free +software, because of secret specifications and requirements for code to +be signed by someone other than you. Cell phone modem chips and even +some graphics accelerators already require firmware to be signed by the +manufacturer. Any program in your computer, that someone else is allowed +to change but you’re not, is an instrument of unjust power over you; +hardware that imposes that requirement is malicious hardware. In the +case of cell phone modem chips, all the models now available are +malicious. + +Some day, free-design digital hardware may be the only platform that +permits running a free system at all. Let us aim to have the necessary +free digital designs before then, and hope that we have the means to +fabricate them cheaply enough for all users. + +If you design hardware, please make your designs free. If you use +hardware, please join in urging and pressuring companies to make +hardware designs free. + +### Levels of Design {#levels-of-design .subheading} + +Software has levels of implementation; a package might include +libraries, commands and scripts, for instance. But these levels don’t +make a significant difference for software freedom because it is +feasible to make all the levels free. Designing components of a program +is the same sort of work as designing the code that combines them; +likewise, building the components from source is the same sort of +operation as building the combined program from source. To make the +whole thing free simply requires continuing the work until we have done +the whole job. + +Therefore, we insist that a program be free at all levels. For a program +to qualify as free, every line of the source code that composes it must +be free, so that you can rebuild the program out of free source code +alone. + +Physical objects, by contrast, are often built out of components that +are designed and build in a different kind of factory. For instance, a +computer is made from chips, but designing (or fabricating) chips is +very different from designing (or fabricating) the computer out of +chips. + +Thus, we need to distinguish *levels* in the design of a digital product +(and maybe some other kinds of products). The circuit that connects the +chips is one level; each chip’s design is another level. In an FPGA, the +interconnection of primitive cells is one level, while the primitive +cells themselves are another level. In the ideal future we will want the +design be free at all levels. Under present circumstances, just making +one level free is a significant advance. + +However, if a design at one level combines free and nonfree parts—for +example, a “free” HDL circuit that incorporates proprietary “soft +cores”—we must conclude that the design as a whole is nonfree at that +level. Likewise for nonfree “wizards” or “macros,” if they specify part +of the interconnections of chips or programmably connected parts of +chips. The free parts may be a step towards the future goal of a free +design, but reaching that goal entails replacing the nonfree parts. They +can never be admissible in the free world. + +### Licenses and Copyright for Free Hardware Designs {#licenses-and-copyright-for-free-hardware-designs .subheading} + +You make a hardware design free by releasing it under a free license. We +recommend using the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later. We +designed GPL version 3 with a view to such use. + +Copyleft on circuits, and on nondecorative object shapes, doesn’t go as +far as one might suppose. The copyright on these designs only applies to +the way the design is drawn or written. Copyleft is a way of using +copyright law, so its effect carries only as far as copyright law +carries. + +For instance, a circuit, as a topology, cannot be copyrighted (and +therefore cannot be copylefted). Definitions of circuits written in HDL +can be copyrighted (and therefore copylefted), but the copyleft covers +only the details of expression of the HDL code, not the circuit topology +it generates. Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be +copyrighted, so it can be copylefted, but this only covers the drawing +or layout, not the circuit topology. Anyone can legally draw the same +circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL +definition that produces the same circuit. + +Copyright doesn’t cover physical circuits, so when people build +instances of the circuit, the design’s license will have no legal effect +on what they do with the devices they have built. + +For drawings of objects, and 3D printer models, copyright doesn’t cover +making a different drawing of the same purely functional object shape. +It also doesn’t cover the functional physical objects made from the +drawing. As far as copyright is concerned, everyone is free to make them +and use them (and that’s a freedom we need very much). In the US, +copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the design +describes,[(10)](#FOOT10) but does cover decorative aspects. When one +object has decorative aspects and functional aspects, you get into +tricky ground.[(11)](#FOOT11) All this may be true in your country as +well, or it may not. Before producing objects commercially or in +quantity, you should consult a local lawyer. Copyright is not the only +issue you need to be concerned with. You might be attacked using +patents, most likely held by entities that had nothing to do with making +the design you’re using, and there may be other legal issues as well. + +Keep in mind that copyright law and patent law are totally different. It +is a mistake to suppose that they have anything in common. This is why +the term “intellectual property” is pure confusion and should be totally +rejected.[(12)](#FOOT12) + +### Promoting Free Hardware through Repositories {#promoting-free-hardware-through-repositories .subheading} + +The most effective way to push for published hardware designs to be free +is through rules in the repositories where they are published. +Repository operators should place the freedom of the people who will use +the designs above the preferences of people who make the designs. This +means requiring designs of useful objects to be free, as a condition for +posting them. + +For decorative objects, that argument does not apply, so we don’t have +to insist they must be free. However, we should insist that they be +sharable. Thus, a repository that handles both decorative object models +and functional ones should have an appropriate license policy for each +category. + +For digital designs, I suggest that the repository insist on GNU +GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, or CC-0. For functional 3D designs, the +repository should ask the design’s author to choose one of four +licenses: GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC-SA, CC-BY or CC-0. For +decorative designs, it should GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC-0, or +any of the CC licenses. + +The repository should require all designs to be published as source +code, and source code in secret formats usable only by proprietary +design programs is not really adequate. For a 3D model, the STL format +is not the preferred format for changing the design and thus is not +source code, so the repository should not accept it, except perhaps +accompanying real source code. + +There is no reason to choose one single format for the source code of +hardware designs, but source formats that cannot yet be handled with +free software should be accepted reluctantly at best. + +### Free Hardware and Warranties {#free-hardware-and-warranties .subheading} + +In general, the authors of free hardware designs have no moral +obligation to offer a warranty to those that fabricate the design. This +is a different issue from the sale of physical hardware, which ought to +come with a warranty from the seller and/or the manufacturer. + +### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} + +We already have suitable licenses to make our hardware designs free. +What we need is to recognize as a community that this is what we should +do and to insist on free designs when we fabricate objects ourselves. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the list of the four freedoms. +@end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright For a growing list of the ways in which surveillance has +spread across industries, see +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html>. +@end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” +(@pageref{OS Misses Point}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See <http://clifford.at/icestorm/>. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See <https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools>. @end +raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}). @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See <http://fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement>. @end +raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright Rich Brown, “Pulling Back from Open Source Hardware, +MakerBot Angers Some Adherents,” 27 September 2012, +[http://cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-\ +open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/](http://cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-%3Cbr%3Eopen-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/). +@end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright As used here, “digital hardware” includes hardware with +some analog circuits and components in addition to digital ones. @end +raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See the US Copyright Office definition of “useful article,” +at <http://copyright.gov/register/va-useful.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright An article by Public Knowledge (“3 Steps for Licensing Your +3D Printed Stuff,” 6 March 2015, +[https://publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/\ +3\_Steps\_for\_Licensing\_Your\_3D\_Printed\_Stuff.pdf](https://publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/%3Cbr%3E3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf)) +gives useful information about this complexity, for the US, though it +falls into the common mistake of using the bogus concept of +“intellectual property” and the propaganda term “protection,” which +should not be used in connection with copyright. See +@pageref{Protection} for the reason why. @end raggedright + +### [(12)](#DOCF12) + +@raggedright See “Did You Say ‘Intellectual Property’? It’s a Seductive +Mirage” (@pageref{Not IPR}). @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md b/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6f17e8f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/free-software-even-more-important.md @@ -0,0 +1,341 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Free Software Is Even More Important Now {#free-software-is-even-more-important-now .chapter} +=========================================== + +Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer +users’ freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than +vice versa. When a program respects users’ freedom and community, we +call it “free software.” + +We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we’re +talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree) programs, +such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as Flash Player, are +available gratis—but that’s a minor detail. Either way, they give the +program’s developer power over the users, power that no one should have. + +Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are both +*malware.* That is, both have functionalities designed to mistreat the +user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware because the +developers’ power corrupts them.[(1)](#FOOT1) With free software, the +users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they +control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and +do what the users’ programs tell them to do). + +With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some +other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the +proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is +unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in +other ways. + +Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to +carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having +control over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs +you use, and all the more so when you use them for something important +in your life. + +Users’ control over the program requires four essential +freedoms.[(2)](#FOOT2) @firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip See +<http://gnu.org/help> for ways to help the free software movement. +@medskip @footnoterule @medskip Copyright © 2015 Richard Stallman\ + {A substantially edited version of this article was published on the +[Wired](Wired) web site as “Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than +Ever Before” (Wired, 28 September 2013, +[http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-\ +is-more-important-now-than-ever-before](http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-%3Cbr%3Eis-more-important-now-than-ever-before)). +This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +1. The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose. +2. The freedom to study the program’s “source code,” and change it, so + the program does your computing as you wish. Programs are written by + programmers in a programming language—like English combined with + algebra—and that form of the program is the “source code.” Anyone + who knows programming, and has the program in source code form, can + read the source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. + When all you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that + are efficient for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human + being to understand, understanding and changing the program in that + form are forbiddingly hard. +3. The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish. (It + is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program is + free, that doesn’t mean someone has an obligation to offer you a + copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy. + Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them; + however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it + privately—does not mistreat anyone.) +4. The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, + when you wish. + +The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual control +over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of users can +together exercise *collective control* over the program. With all four +freedoms, the users fully control the program. If any of them is missing +or inadequate, the program is proprietary (nonfree), and unjust. + +Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including +recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference +works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying +paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build, +and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D +printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement +strictly speaking doesn’t cover them; but the same reasoning applies and +leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four +freedoms. + +A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you want +(or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software may +sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as a +sealed box, but in the Free World it’s a common thing to do, and a good +way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime of +tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree +software. + +### The Injustice of Proprietariness {#the-injustice-of-proprietariness .subheading} + +If the users don’t control the program, the program controls the users. +With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or +“owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it, +exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an +instrument of unjust power. + +In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) +proprietary programs are designed to spy on the users, restrict them, +censor them, and abuse them.[(3)](#FOOT3) For instance, the operating +system of Apple iThings does all of these, and so does Windows on mobile +devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile phone firmware, and Google +Chrome for Windows include a universal back door that allows some +company to change the program remotely without asking permission. The +Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase books. + +The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things” would turn it +into the “internet of telemarketers”[(4)](#FOOT4) as well as the +“internet of snoopers.” + +With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free +software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves. +We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system GNU. Today, +millions of computers run GNU, mainly in the GNU/Linux +combination.[(5)](#FOOT5) + +Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users; +however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat +anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no wrong +to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that’s not the +same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must be free, we +mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms, but we don’t mean +that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy. + +### Nonfree Software and SaaSS {#nonfree-software-and-saass .subheading} + +Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of +people’s computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as a +Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else’s server +do your own computing tasks. + +SaaSS doesn’t mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they +often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a +nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the +example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the +server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say) and +sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of translating is +under the control of the server operator rather than the user. + +If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It +requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator, which +will be forced to show it to the state as well—who does that server +really serve, after all?[(6)](#FOOT6) + +### Primary and Secondary Injustices {#primary-and-secondary-injustices .subheading} + +When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to +yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your +own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise +not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to +break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all. + +There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly on +others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person uses +the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to use +that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. (Google Hangouts +have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest using such programs. +We should refuse to use them even briefly, even on someone else’s +computer. + +Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards the +perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or +“service,” leading in turn to even more people falling under the +company’s thumb. + +All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a public +entity or a school. + +### Free Software and the State {#free-software-and-the-state .subheading} + +Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they do +computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain full +control over that computing so that they can assure it is done properly +for the people. (This constitutes the computational sovereignty of the +state.) They must never allow control over the state’s computing to fall +into private hands. + +To maintain control of the people’s computing, public agencies must not +do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an entity +other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a service +programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since this would +be SaaSS. + +Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case—against +its developer. And the developer may help others attack. Microsoft shows +Windows bugs to the NSA[(7)](#FOOT7) (the US government digital spying +agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does likewise, +but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft. If the +government of any other country uses such software, it endangers +national security.[(8)](#FOOT8) Do you want the NSA to break into your +government’s computers? + +### Free Software and Education {#free-software-and-education .subheading} + +Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the +future of society through what they teach. They should teach exclusively +free software, so as to use their influence for the good. To teach a +proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes against the +mission of education. By training in use of free software, schools will +direct society’s future towards freedom, and help talented programmers +master the craft. + +They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping other +people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this class is a +place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software to class, you +may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share copies with the +rest of the class—including the program’s source code, in case someone +else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing proprietary software to class +is not permitted except to reverse engineer it.” + +Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough +at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to want to +change it. This means a bad education.[(9)](#FOOT9) + +### Free Software: More Than “Advantages” {#free-software-more-than-advantages .subheading} + +I’m often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the +word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without +freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every +other activity in our lives. We must refuse to give the developers of +the programs or computing services control over the computing we do. +This is the right thing to do, for selfish reasons; but not solely for +selfish reasons. + +Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying people +that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of a scheme +to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very much aware +of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our work consists +of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit and sees you use +a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which stops you from +redistributing it, or says you’re “not supposed to,” is antisocial. + +In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a +program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed +versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of cooperation, +while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids redistribution of +copies, and by denying users the source code, it blocks them from making +changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your computing is done over the +web in someone else’s server, by someone else’s copy of a program, you +can’t see it or touch the software that does your computing, so you +can’t redistribute it or change it. + +### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} + +We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win this +control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own or +regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By developing free +software[(10)](#FOOT10) (for those of us who are programmers). By +refusing to develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By spreading +these ideas to others.[(11)](#FOOT11) + +We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how we now +have the free GNU/Linux operating system that anyone—programmer or +not—can use. Join our cause, as a programmer or an activist. Let’s make +all computer users free. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html> for an +evolving list of these threats. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See footnote 1, on @pageref{Proprietary Software}. @end +raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright Marcelo Rinesi, “The Telemarketer Singularity,” +6 August 2015, <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806>. +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “The GNU Project” (@pageref{GNU Project}), for more on +the history of the GNU operating system, and +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, for the “GNU/Linux FAQ.” @end +raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server}) +for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright Sean Gallagher, “NSA Gets Early Access to Zero-Day Data +from Microsoft, Others,” 14 June 2013, +[http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-\ +early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-%3Cbr%3Eearly-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/). +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “Measures Governments Can User to Promote Free +Software” (@pageref{Government}) for our suggested policies. @end +raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/education> for more discussion of the +use of free software in schools. @end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See “How to Choose a License for Your Own Work” +(@pageref{License Recommendations}) for our licensing recommendations. +@end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/help> for the various ways you could +help. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/free-sw.md b/docs/free-sw.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9b17ecb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/free-sw.md @@ -0,0 +1,325 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. What Is Free Software? {#what-is-free-software .chapter} +========================= + +### The Free Software Definition {#the-free-software-definition .subheading} + +> The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a +> particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to +> time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions +> about subtle issues. For a list of the changes we’ve made to the +> definition of free software, please see the “History” section, +> following the definition, at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>. + +“Free software” means software that respects users’ freedom and +community. Roughly, it means that **the users have the freedom to run, +copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.** Thus, “free +software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, +you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” +We sometimes call it “libre software” to show we do not mean it is +gratis. + +We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With +these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control +the program and what it does for them. When users don’t control the +program, we call it a “nonfree” or “proprietary” program. The nonfree +program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; this +makes the program an instrument of unjust power.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 1996–2002, +2004–2007, 2009–2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {The free software definition was first published in 1996, on +<http://gnu.org>. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +A program is free software if the program’s users have the four +essential freedoms: + +- The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any + purpose (freedom 0). +- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does + your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is + a precondition for this. +- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your + neighbor (freedom 2). +- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to + others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a + chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a + precondition for this. + +A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these +freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various +nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of +being free, we consider them all equally unethical. + +In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code we +plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of. For instance, +consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to handle +some cases. If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that implies users +will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B are free. However, +if we plan to modify A so that it doesn’t use B, only A needs to be +free; we can ignore B. + +The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes specific +freedoms adequate or not. + +Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to +redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis +or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do +these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or +pay for permission to do so. + +You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them +privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they +exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to +notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way. + +The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person +or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind +of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about +it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it +is the *user’s* purpose that matters, not the *developer’s* purpose; you +as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you +distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her +purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. + +The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not +forbidden or stopped from doing so. It has nothing to do with what +functionality the program has, or whether it is useful for what you want +to do. + +The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable +forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and +unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is +necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK +if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain +program (since some languages don’t support that feature), but you must +have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a +way to make them. + +In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the +freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have +access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of +source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated +“source code” is not real source code and does not count as source code. + +Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of +the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run +someone else’s modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice +known as “tivoization” or “lockdown,” or (in its practitioners’ perverse +terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather +than a practical reality. These binaries are not free software even if +the source code they are compiled from is free. + +One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free +subroutines and modules. If the program’s license says that you cannot +merge in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it +requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add—then the +license is too restrictive to qualify as free. + +Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free +software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them; +in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. However, a +license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify +as a free license. + +In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and +irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the +software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add +restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give +cause, the software is not free. + +However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free +software are acceptable, when they don’t conflict with the central +freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that +when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny +other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the +central freedoms; rather it protects them. + +In the GNU Project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms legally +for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why it is better to +use copyleft. However, noncopylefted free software is ethical too. See +“Categories of Free Software” (@pageref{Categories}) for a description +of how “free software,” “copylefted software” and other categories of +software relate to each other. + +“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be +available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial +distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer +unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have +paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained +copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you +always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell +copies. + +Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If +your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that +someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free. + +However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, +if they don’t substantively limit your freedom to release modified +versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. +Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the +name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your +modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so +burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, +they are acceptable; you’re already making other changes to the program, +so you won’t have trouble making a few more. + +Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must +make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same +condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if +you have distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks +for a copy of it, you must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves +you the choice of whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that +require release of source code to the users for versions that you put +into public use are also acceptable. + +A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by +which the program will be invoked from other programs. That effectively +hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it can replace +the original when invoked by those other programs. This sort of +requirement is acceptable only if there’s a suitable aliasing facility +that allows you to specify the original program’s name as an alias for +the modified version. + +Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can +constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. +Software developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these +restrictions, but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as +conditions of use of the program. In this way, the restrictions will not +affect activities and people outside the jurisdictions of these +governments. Thus, free software licenses must not require obedience to +any nontrivial export regulations as a condition of exercising any of +the essential freedoms. + +Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making +them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does not +restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for free +software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual problem; +however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in export law +could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the software +nonfree. + +A free license may not require compliance with the license of a nonfree +program. Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to comply with +the licenses of “all the programs you use,” in the case of a user that +runs nonfree programs this would require compliance with the licenses of +those nonfree programs; that makes the license nonfree. + +It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction’s law +applies, or where litigation must be done, or both. + +Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits +on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a +copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it +is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated +(though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software +licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger +range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways +such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree. + +We can’t possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a +contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that +copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn’t mentioned here as +legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably +conclude it is nonfree. + +When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like +“give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that the issue is +about price, not freedom. Some common terms such as “piracy” embody +opinions we hope you won’t endorse. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with +Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing” (@pageref{Words to Avoid}) +for a discussion of these terms. We also have a list of proper +translations of “free software” into various languages +(@pageref{Appendix B}). + +Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software +definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide +whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software +license, we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it +fits their spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes +unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate +the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an +issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a +lawyer, before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we +reach a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to +make it easier to see why certain licenses do or don’t qualify. + +If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free +software license, see our list of licenses, at +<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. If the license you are +concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us about it by sending +us email at <licensing@gnu.org>. + +If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the Free +Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The proliferation +of different free software licenses means increased work for users in +understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing +free software license that meets your needs. + +If that isn’t possible, if you really need a new license, with our help +you can ensure that the license really is a free software license and +avoid various practical problems. + +### Beyond Software {#beyond-software .subheading} + +Software manuals must be free,[(2)](#FOOT2) for the same reasons that +software must be free, and because the manuals are in effect part of the +software. + +The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical +use—that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as +educational works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best-known +example. + +Any kind of work *can* be free, and the definition of free software has +been extended to a definition of free cultural works[(3)](#FOOT3) +applicable to any kind of works. + +### Open Source? {#open-source .subheading} + +Another group users the term “open source” to mean something close (but +not identical) to “free software.” We prefer the term “free software” +because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than +price, it calls to mind freedom. The word “open” never refers to +freedom.[(4)](#FOOT4) + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See “Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation” +(@pageref{Free Doc}). @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See <http://freedomdefined.org>. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” +(@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/freedom-or-power.md b/docs/freedom-or-power.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..24bd6c7 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/freedom-or-power.md @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Freedom or Power? {#freedom-or-power .chapter} +==================== + +Written by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard Stallman.\ + *The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the +love of ourselves.* + +—William Hazlitt + +\ + +In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of +software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are +necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a +community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for +free software[(1)](#FOOT1) specify the freedoms that a program’s users +need so that they can cooperate in a community. + +@secondcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2001, 2009 +Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2001. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +We stand for freedom for programmers as well as for other users. Most of +us are programmers, and we want freedom for ourselves as well as for +you. But each of us uses software written by others, and we want freedom +when using that software, not just when using our own code. We stand for +freedom for all users, whether they program often, occasionally, or not +at all. + +However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom +to choose any license you want for software you write.” We reject this +because it is really a form of power, not a freedom. + +This oft overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to +make decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make +decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with +freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom. + +Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power. Copyright law +today grants software developers that power, so they and only they +choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively small number of +people make the basic software decisions for all users, typically by +denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define free +software, they can’t tell what the software is doing, can’t check for +back doors, can’t monitor possible viruses and worms, can’t find out +what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even +if they do find out). If it breaks, they can’t fix it; they have to wait +for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn’t +quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can’t help each other +improve it. + +Proprietary software developers are often businesses. We in the free +software movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what +happens when a software business has the “freedom” to impose arbitrary +rules on the users of software. Microsoft is an egregious example of how +denying users’ freedoms can lead to direct harm, but it is not the only +example. Even when there is no monopoly, proprietary software harms +society. A choice of masters is not freedom. + +Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on +the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program +regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software +businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, +so software developers now control the way it lives, does business, +communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and political issues are +not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of choice (for developers +only).” + +If “code is law,”[(2)](#FOOT2) then the real question we face is: who +should control the code you use—you, or an elite few? We believe you are +entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is +the goal of free software. + +We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use; +however, that is not what today’s law says. Current copyright law places +us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it +or not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom +for each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise +government power by guaranteeing each citizen’s freedoms. That is what +the GNU General Public License is for: it puts you in control of your +usage of the software while protecting you from others who would like to +take control of your decisions.[(3)](#FOOT3) + +As more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that +they too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms +we stand for, just as more and more users have come to appreciate the +practical value of the free software we have developed. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full list of these +criteria. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright William J. Mitchell, *City of Bits: Space, Place, and the +Infobahn* (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), p. 111, as quoted by +Lawrence Lessig in *Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0* (New +York, NY: Basic Books, 2006), p. 5. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “Why Copyleft?” (@pageref{Why Copyleft}) 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/).\ diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/Makefile b/docs/fs-translations/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fdefae5 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +x: + pdftex scrap1.texi + texindex scrap1.?? + perl ./mergerangeidx scrap1.cps scrap1.rgs >scrap1.merges + pdftex scrap1.texi diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ar-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ar-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1024c98 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ar-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/be-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/be-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6646da0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/be-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/bg-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/bg-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..856dc65 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/bg-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/bg-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/bg-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..11ba794 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/bg-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/bn-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/bn-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f25e98 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/bn-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/el-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/el-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cef86a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/el-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/el-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/el-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..ad5e3c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/el-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/fa-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/fa-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a4288fb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/fa-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/fa-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/fa-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7a83c9 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/fa-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/he-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/he-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a17b33 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/he-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/he-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/he-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d4cb93 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/he-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/hi-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/hi-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d07aaa --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/hi-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.odt b/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.odt Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..6d0bb5b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.odt diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b07791d --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/hi-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/hy-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/hy-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5c993b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/hy-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6f6baf --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2833ee2 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ja-kanji-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ja-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ja-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d83a602 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ja-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ka-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ka-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a464568 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ka-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ka-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ka-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a3b3cff --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ka-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ko-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ko-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..45f5c69 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ko-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/mk-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/mk-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..874f358 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/mk-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/mk-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/mk-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..01793f1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/mk-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ml-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ml-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..98d3b29 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ml-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ml-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ml-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e9e23d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ml-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ru-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ru-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2e376aa --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ru-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ru-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ru-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..4e21a93 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ru-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/si-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/si-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8a36fff --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/si-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/sr-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/sr-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5606e3c --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/sr-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/sr-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/sr-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b2a136e --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/sr-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ta-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ta-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..20dbcde --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ta-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ta-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ta-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..590aacd --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ta-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/th-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/th-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d1cee92 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/th-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/uk-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/uk-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..83d4e81 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/uk-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ur-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ur-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3bdf071 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ur-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/ur-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/ur-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..77c3bc5 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/ur-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/vi-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/vi-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4215e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/vi-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-free.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-free.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..47f7a07 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-free.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..97a3687 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe522e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-cn-libre.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-free.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-free.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..dd48783 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-free.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-gratis.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-gratis.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d8b788 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-gratis.pdf diff --git a/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-libre.pdf b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-libre.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..55701fb --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/fs-translations/zh-tw-libre.pdf 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/).\ diff --git a/docs/gpl.md b/docs/gpl.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bb23c9f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/gpl.md @@ -0,0 +1,741 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The GNU General Public License {#the-gnu-general-public-license .chapter} +================================= + +Version 3, 29 June 2007 + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.display} | +| | Copyright © 2007 Free Software Found | +| | ation, Inc. http://fsf.org/ | +| | 51 Franklin St., Floor 5, Boston, MA | +| | 02110-1335, USA | +| | | +| | Everyone is permitted to copy and di | +| | stribute verbatim copies of this lic | +| | ense document, but changing it is no | +| | t allowed. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +Preamble {#preamble .heading} +-------- + +The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software +and other kinds of works. + +The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to +take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the +GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to +share and change all versions of a program—to make sure it remains free +software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the +GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to +any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to +your programs, too. + +When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. +Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the +freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if +you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, +that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free +programs, and that you know you can do these things. + +To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these +rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have +certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if +you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others. + +For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis +or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that +you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the +source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their +rights. + +Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) +assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving +you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it. + +For the developers’ and authors’ protection, the GPL clearly explains +that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users’ and +authors’ sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as +changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to +authors of previous versions. + +Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run +modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer +can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting +users’ freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such +abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is +precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed +this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If +such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to +extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as +needed to protect the freedom of users. + +Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. +States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of +software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to +avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could +make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that +patents cannot be used to render the program non-free. + +The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and +modification follow. + +TERMS AND CONDITIONS {#terms-and-conditions .heading} +-------------------- + +1. **Definitions.** + + “This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General + Public License. + + “Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds + of works, such as semiconductor masks. + + “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under + this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and + “recipients” may be individuals or organizations. + + To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the + work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the + making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified + version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work. + + A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based + on the Program. + + To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without + permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for + infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on + a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes + copying, distribution (with or without modification), making + available to the public, and in some countries other activities + as well. + + To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other + parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user + through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is + not conveying. + + An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” + to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible + feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) + tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to the + extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the + work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If + the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a + menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion. + +2. **Source Code.** + + The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work + for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source + form of a work. + + A “Standard Interface” means an interface that either is an official + standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of + interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that + is widely used among developers working in that language. + + The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other + than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of + packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major + Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that + Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an + implementation is available to the public in source code form. A + “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential + component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific + operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a + compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter + used to run it. + + The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all + the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an + executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, + including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not + include the work’s System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or + generally available free programs which are used unmodified in + performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For + example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files + associated with source files for the work, and the source code for + shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is + specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data + communication or control flow between those subprograms and other + parts of the work. + + The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can + regenerate automatically from other parts of the + Corresponding Source. + + The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that + same work. + +3. **Basic Permissions.** + + All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of + copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated + conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited + permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a + covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given + its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges + your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by + copyright law. + + You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not + convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains + in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole + purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or + provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that + you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material + for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running + the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, + under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from + making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their + relationship with you. + + Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under + the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 + makes it unnecessary. + +4. **Protecting Users’ Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.** + + No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological + measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under + article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, + or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of + such measures. + + When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid + circumvention of technological measures to the extent such + circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License + with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to + limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, + against the work’s users, your or third parties’ legal rights to + forbid circumvention of technological measures. + +5. **Conveying Verbatim Copies.** + + You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you + receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and + appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; + keep intact all notices stating that this License and any + non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the + code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and + give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. + + You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, + and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee. + +6. **Conveying Modified Source Versions.** + + You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to + produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the + terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these + conditions: + + 1. The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified + it, and giving a relevant date. + 2. The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is + released under this License and any conditions added under + section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section + 4 to “keep intact all notices”. + 3. You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License + to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will + therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional + terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless + of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to + license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate + such permission if you have separately received it. + 4. If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display + Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has + interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal + Notices, your work need not make them do so. + + A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent + works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, + and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, + in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an + “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not + used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation’s users + beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work + in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other + parts of the aggregate. + +7. **Conveying Non-Source Forms.** + + You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of + sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable + Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of + these ways: + + 1. Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product + (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the + Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium + customarily used for software interchange. + 2. Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product + (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a + written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as + long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that + product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code + either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the + software in the product that is covered by this License, on a + durable physical medium customarily used for software + interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of + physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to + copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at + no charge. + 3. Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the + written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This + alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, + and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in + accord with subsection 6b. + 4. Convey the object code by offering access from a designated + place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to + the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place + at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy + the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the + place to copy the object code is a network server, the + Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by + you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying + facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the + object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. + Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you + remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as + needed to satisfy these requirements. + 5. Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided + you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding + Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no + charge under subsection 6d. + + A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is + excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not + be included in conveying the object code work. + + A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any + tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, + family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for + incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a + consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor + of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, + “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of + product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the + way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is + expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product + regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, + industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only + significant mode of use of the product. + + “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, + procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to + install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User + Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The + information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of + the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with + solely because modification has been made. + + If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or + specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as + part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of + the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or + for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is + characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section + must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this + requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party + retains the ability to install modified object code on the User + Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM). + + The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include + a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or + updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the + recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified + or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the + modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation + of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication + across the network. + + Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information + provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is + publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the + public in source code form), and must require no special password or + key for unpacking, reading or copying. + +8. **Additional Terms.** + + “Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this + License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. + Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program + shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to + the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional + permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used + separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains + governed by this License without regard to the + additional permissions. + + When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option + remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part + of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own + removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place + additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, + for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission. + + Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material + you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright + holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with + terms: + + 1. Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the + terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or + 2. Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or + author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal + Notices displayed by works containing it; or + 3. Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or + requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in + reasonable ways as different from the original version; or + 4. Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or + authors of the material; or + 5. Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some + trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or + 6. Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that + material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified + versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the + recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions + directly impose on those licensors and authors. + + All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further + restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as + you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that + it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further + restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document + contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying + under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed + by the terms of that license document, provided that the further + restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying. + + If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you + must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the + additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating + where to find the applicable terms. + + Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the + form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the + above requirements apply either way. + +9. **Termination.** + + You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly + provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or + modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights + under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the + third paragraph of section 11). + + However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your + license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) + provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and + finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the + copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some + reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. + + Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is + reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the + violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have + received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from + that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days + after your receipt of the notice. + + Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the + licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you + under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not + permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses + for the same material under section 10. + +10. **Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.** + + You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or + run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work + occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission + to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, + nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate + or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you + do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a + covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so. + +11. **Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.** + + Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically + receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and + propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not + responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with + this License. + + An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an + organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an + organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered + work results from an entity transaction, each party to that + transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever + licenses to the work the party’s predecessor in interest had or + could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession + of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in + interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with + reasonable efforts. + + You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the + rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may + not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of + rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate + litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) + alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, + selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion + of it. + +12. **Patents.** + + A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this + License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The + work thus licensed is called the contributor’s + “contributor version”. + + A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims + owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or + hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, + permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its + contributor version, but do not include claims that would be + infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the + contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” + includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner + consistent with the requirements of this License. + + Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free + patent license under the contributor’s essential patent claims, to + make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify + and propagate the contents of its contributor version. + + In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express + agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a + patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or + covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a + patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or + commitment not to enforce a patent against the party. + + If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, + and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone + to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through + a publicly available network server or other readily accessible + means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be + so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of + the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a + manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend + the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” + means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, + your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient’s + use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more + identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe + are valid. + + If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or + arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a + covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties + receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, + modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the + patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients + of the covered work and works based on it. + + A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within + the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is + conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that + are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a + covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party + that is in the business of distributing software, under which you + make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity + of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to + any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a + discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the + covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), + or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or + compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into + that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 + March 2007. + + Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting + any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may + otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law. + +13. **No Surrender of Others’ Freedom.** + + If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement + or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they + do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot + convey a covered work so as to satisfy simultaneously your + obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, + then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if + you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for + further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the + only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would + be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program. + +14. **Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.** + + Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have + permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed + under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a + single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of + this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered + work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public + License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will + apply to the combination as such. + +15. **Revised Versions of this License.** + + The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions + of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new + versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may + differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. + + Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the + Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General + Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the + option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered + version or of any later version published by the Free + Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version + number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version + ever published by the Free Software Foundation. + + If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future + versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy’s + public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes + you to choose that version for the Program. + + Later license versions may give you additional or + different permissions. However, no additional obligations are + imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your + choosing to follow a later version. + +16. **Disclaimer of Warranty.** + + THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY + APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE + COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” + WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, + INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE + RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. + SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL + NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. + +17. **Limitation of Liability.** + + IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN + WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES + AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR + DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL + DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM + (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED + INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE + OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH + HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF + SUCH DAMAGES. + +18. **Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.** + + If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided + above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, + reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely + approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection + with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability + accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee. + +END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS {#end-of-terms-and-conditions .heading} +--------------------------- + +How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs {#how-to-apply-these-terms-to-your-new-programs .heading} +--------------------------------------------- + +If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest +possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it +free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these +terms. + +To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to +attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively state +the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the +“copyright” line and a pointer to where the full notice is found. + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | one line to give the program's name | +| | and a brief idea of what it does. | +| | Copyright (C) year name of author | +| | | +| | This program is free software: you c | +| | an redistribute it and/or modify | +| | it under the terms of the GNU Genera | +| | l Public License as published by | +| | the Free Software Foundation, either | +| | version 3 of the License, or (at | +| | your option) any later version. | +| | | +| | This program is distributed in the h | +| | ope that it will be useful, but | +| | WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even t | +| | he implied warranty of | +| | MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PAR | +| | TICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU | +| | General Public License for more deta | +| | ils. | +| | | +| | You should have received a copy of t | +| | he GNU General Public License | +| | along with this program. If not, se | +| | e http://www.gnu.org/licenses/. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail. + +If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice +like this when it starts in an interactive mode: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | program Copyright (C) year name of a | +| | uthor | +| | This program comes with ABSOLUTELY N | +| | O WARRANTY; | +| | for details type ‘show w’. This is | +| | free software, | +| | and you are welcome to redistribute | +| | it under | +| | certain conditions; type ‘show c’ fo | +| | r details. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +The hypothetical commands ‘show w’ and ‘show c’ should show the +appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, your +program’s commands might be different; for a GUI interface, you would +use an “about box”. + +You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or +school, if any, to sign a “copyright disclaimer” for the program, if +necessary. For more information on this, and how to apply and follow the +GNU GPL, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. + +The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your +program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine +library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary +applications with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the +GNU Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, +please read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html>. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md b/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fc928be --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/imperfection-isnt-oppression.md @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Imperfection Is Not the Same as Oppression {#imperfection-is-not-the-same-as-oppression .chapter} +============================================= + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +When a free program lacks capabilities that users want, that is +unfortunate; we urge people to add what is missing. Some would go +further and claim that a program is not even free software if it lacks +certain functionality—that it denies freedom 0 (the freedom to run the +program as you wish) to users or uses that it does not support. This +argument is misguided because it is based on identifying capacity with +freedom, and imperfection with oppression. + +Each program inevitably has certain functionalities and lacks others +that might be desirable. There are some jobs it can do, and others it +can’t do without further work. This is the nature of software. + +The absence of key functionality can mean certain users find the program +totally unusable. For instance, if you only understand graphical +interfaces, a command line program may be impossible for you to use. If +you can’t see the screen, a program without a screen reader may be +impossible for you to use. If you speak only Greek, a program with menus +and messages in English may be impossible for you to use. If your +programs are written in Ada, a C compiler is impossible for you to use. +To overcome these barriers yourself is unreasonable to demand of you. +Free software really ought to provide the functionality you need. + +Free software really ought to provide it, but the lack of that feature +does not make the program nonfree, because it is an imperfection, not +oppression. + +Making a program nonfree is an injustice committed by the developer that +denies freedom to whoever uses it. The developer deserves condemnation +for this. It is crucial to condemn that developer, because nobody else +can undo the injustice as long as the developer continues to do it. We +can, and do, try to rescue the victims by developing a free replacement, +but we can’t make the nonfree program free. + +Developing a free program without adding a certain important feature is +not doing wrong to anyone. Rather, it’s doing some good but not all the +good that people need. Nobody in particular deserves condemnation for +not developing the missing feature, since any capable person could do +it. It would be ungrateful, as well as self-defeating, to single out the +free program’s authors for blame for not having done some additional +work. + +What we can do is state that completing the job calls for doing some +additional work. That is constructive because it helps us convince +someone to do that work. + +If you think a certain extension in a free program is important, please +push for it in the way that respects our contributors. Don’t criticize +the people who contributed the useful code we have. Rather, look for a +way to complete the job. You can urge the program’s developers to turn +their attention to the missing feature when they have time for more +work. You can offer to help them. You can recruit people or raise funds +to support the work. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/initial-announcement.md b/docs/initial-announcement.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bcd7cf3 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/initial-announcement.md @@ -0,0 +1,136 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Operating System {#the-initial-announcement-of-the-gnuoperatingsystem .chapter} +======================================================= + +This is the original announcement of the GNU Project, posted by Richard +Stallman on 27 September 1983. + +The actual history of the GNU Project differs in many ways from this +initial plan. For example, the beginning was delayed until January 1984. +Several of the philosophical concepts of free software were not +clarified until a few years later. + +@raggedright @smallfonts @tt @hyphenpenalty=10000 +@parskip=.66@baselineskip @parindent=0pt From +mit-vax!mit-eddie!RMS@MIT-OZ\ + From: `RMS%MIT-OZ@mit-eddie`\ + Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.usoft\ + Subject: new Unix implementation\ + Date: Tue, 27-Sep-83 12:35:59 EST\ + Organization: MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA + +Free Unix! + +Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete +Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu’s Not Unix), and +give it away free[(1)](#FOOT1) to everyone who can use it. Contributions +of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed. + +To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to +write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, assembler, +and a few other things. After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, +an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things. We hope to +supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix +system, and anything else useful, including on-line and hardcopy +documentation. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule Copyright © 1983 Richard Stallman\ + {This announcement is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to +Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our +experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have +longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, +filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and +eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp +programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp +will be available as system programming languages. We will have network +software based on MIT’s chaosnet protocol, far superior to UUCP. We may +also have something compatible with UUCP. + +Who Am I? + +I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS +editor, now at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked +extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the +Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I +pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. In addition I +have implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for +Lisp machines. + +Why I Must Write GNU + +I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must +share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign +a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. + +So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, +I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so +that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free. + +How You Can Contribute + +I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. +I’m asking individuals for donations of programs and work. + +One computer manufacturer has already offered to provide a machine. But +we could use more. One consequence you can expect if you donate machines +is that GNU will run on them at an early date. The machine had better be +able to operate in a residential area, and not require sophisticated +cooling or power. + +Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate +of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such +part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the +independently-written parts would not work together. But for the +particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Most +interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each +contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will probably work with the +rest of GNU. + +If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or +part time. The salary won’t be high, but I’m looking for people for whom +knowing they are helping humanity is as important as money. I view this +as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies to +working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a living in another way. + +For more information, contact me.\ + Arpanet mail:\ + RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA + +Usenet:\ + ...!mit-eddie!RMS@OZ ...!mit-vax!RMS@OZ + +US Snail:\ + Richard Stallman\ + 166 Prospect St\ + Cambridge, MA 02139 @end raggedright + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright The wording here was careless. The intention was that +nobody would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But the +words don’t make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying +that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge. +That was never the intent. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/javascript-trap.md b/docs/javascript-trap.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..84460e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/javascript-trap.md @@ -0,0 +1,265 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The JavaScript Trap {#the-javascript-trap .chapter} +====================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2009–2013 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2009. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +> **You may be running nonfree programs on your computer every day +> without realizing it—through your web browser.** + +In the free software community, the idea that nonfree programs mistreat +their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install +proprietary software, and many others consider nonfreedom a strike +against the program. Many users are aware that this issue applies to the +plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can be free or +nonfree. + +But browsers run other nonfree programs which they don’t ask you about +or even tell you about—programs that web pages contain or link to. These +programs are most often written in JavaScript, though other languages +are also used. + +JavaScript (officially called ECMAScript, but few use that name) was +once used for minor frills in web pages, such as cute but inessential +navigation and display features. It was acceptable to consider these as +mere extensions of HTML markup, rather than as true software; they did +not constitute a significant issue. + +Many sites still use JavaScript that way, but some use it for major +programs that do large jobs. For instance, Google Docs downloads into +your machine a JavaScript program which measures half a megabyte, in a +compacted form that we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments +and hardly any whitespace, and the method names are one letter long. The +source code of a program is the preferred form for modifying it; the +compacted code is not source code, and the real source code of this +program is not available to the user. + +Browsers don’t normally tell you when they load JavaScript programs. +Most browsers have a way to turn off JavaScript entirely, but none of +them can check for JavaScript programs that are nontrivial and nonfree. +Even if you’re aware of this issue, it would take you considerable +trouble to identify and then block those programs. However, even in the +free software community most users are not aware of this issue; the +browsers’ silence tends to conceal it. + +It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by +distributing the source code under a free software license. But even if +the program’s source is available, there is no easy way to run your +modified version instead of the original. Current free browsers do not +offer a facility to run your own modified version instead of the one +delivered in the page. The effect is comparable to tivoization, although +not quite so hard to overcome. + +JavaScript is not the only language web sites use for programs sent to +the user. Flash supports programming through an extended variant of +JavaScript. We will need to study the issue of Flash to make suitable +recommendations. Silverlight seems likely to create a problem similar to +Flash, except worse, since Microsoft uses it as a platform for nonfree +codecs. A free replacement for Silverlight does not do the job for the +free world unless it normally comes with free replacement codecs. + +Java applets also run in the browser, and raise similar issues. In +general, any sort of applet system poses this sort of problem. Having a +free execution environment for an applet only brings us far enough to +encounter the problem. + +A strong movement has developed that calls for web sites to communicate +only through formats and protocols that are free (some say “open”); that +is to say, whose documentation is published and which anyone is free to +implement. With the presence of programs in web pages, that criterion is +necessary, but not sufficient. JavaScript itself, as a format, is free, +and use of JavaScript in a web site is not necessarily bad. However, as +we’ve seen above, it also isn’t necessarily OK. When the site transmits +a program to the user, it is not enough for the program to be written in +a documented and unencumbered language; that program must be free, too. +“Only free programs transmitted to the user” must become part of the +criterion for proper behavior by web sites. + +Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several +issues raised by “web applications.” The term “web application” was +designed to disregard the fundamental distinction between software +delivered to users and software running on the server. It can refer to a +specialized client program running in a browser; it can refer to +specialized server software; it can refer to a specialized client +program that works hand in hand with specialized server software. The +client and server sides raise different ethical issues, even if they are +so closely integrated that they arguably form parts of a single program. +This article addresses only the issue of the client-side software. We +are addressing the server issue separately. + +In practical terms, how can we deal with the problem of nonfree +JavaScript programs in web sites? The first step is to avoid running it. + +What do we mean by “nontrivial”? It is a matter of degree, so this is a +matter of designing a simple criterion that gives good results, rather +than finding the one correct answer. + +Our tentative policy is to consider a JavaScript program nontrivial if: + +- it makes an AJAX request or is loaded along with scripts that make + an AJAX request, +- it loads external scripts dynamically or is loaded along with + scripts that do, +- it defines functions or methods and either loads an external script + (from html) or is loaded as one, +- it uses dynamic JavaScript constructs that are difficult to analyze + without interpreting the program, or is loaded along with scripts + that use such constructs. These constructs are: + + @jstrap + + - using the eval function, + - calling methods with the square bracket notation, + - using any other construct than a string literal with certain + methods (Obj.write, Obj.createElement,…). + +How do we tell whether the JavaScript code is free? At the end of this +article we propose a convention by which a nontrivial JavaScript program +in a web page can state the URL where its source code is located, and +can state its license too, using stylized comments. + +Finally, we need to change free browsers to detect and block nontrivial +nonfree JavaScript in web pages. The program LibreJS detects nonfree, +nontrivial JavaScript in pages you visit, and blocks it.[(1)](#FOOT1) +LibreJS is an add-on for IceCat and IceWeasel (and Firefox). + +Browser users also need a convenient facility to specify JavaScript code +to use *instead* of the JavaScript in a certain page. (The specified +code might be total replacement, or a modified version of the free +JavaScript program in that page.) Greasemonkey comes close to being able +to do this, but not quite, since it doesn’t guarantee to modify the +JavaScript code in a page before that program starts to execute. Using a +local proxy works, but is too inconvenient now to be a real solution. We +need to construct a solution that is reliable and convenient, as well as +sites for sharing changes. The GNU Project would like to recommend sites +which are dedicated to free changes only. + +These features will make it possible for a JavaScript program included +in a web page to be free in a real and practical sense. JavaScript will +no longer be a particular obstacle to our freedom—no more than C and +Java are now. We will be able to reject and even replace the nonfree +nontrivial JavaScript programs, just as we reject and replace nonfree +packages that are offered for installation in the usual way. Our +campaign for web sites to free their JavaScript can then begin. + +In the mean time, there’s one case where it is acceptable to run a +nonfree JavaScript program: to send a complaint to the web site +operators saying they should free or remove the JavaScript code in the +site. Please don’t hesitate to enable JavaScript temporarily to do +that—but remember to disable it again afterwards. + +### Appendix A: A Convention for Releasing Free JavaScript Programs {#appendix-a-a-convention-for-releasing-free-javascript-programs .subheading} + +For references to corresponding source code, we recommend + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | // @source: | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +followed by the URL. This satisfies the GNU GPL’s requirement to +distribute source code. If the source is on a different site, you must +take care to handle that properly. Source code is necessary for the +program to be free. + +To indicate the license of the JavaScript code embedded in a page, we +recommend putting the license notice between two notes of this form: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | @licstart The following is the | +| | entire license notice for the | +| | JavaScript code in this page. | +| | ... | +| | @licend The above is the entire | +| | license notice | +| | for the JavaScript code in this | +| | page. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +Of course, all of this should be contained in a multiline comment. + +The GNU GPL, like many other free software licenses, requires +distribution of a copy of the license with both source and binary forms +of the program. However, the GNU GPL is long enough that including it in +a page with a JavaScript program can be inconvenient. You can remove +that requirement, for code that you have the copyright on, with a +license notice like this: + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.smallexample} | +| | Copyright (C) YYYY Developer | +| | | +| | The JavaScript code in this page | +| | is free software: you can | +| | redistribute it and/or modify it | +| | under the terms of the GNU | +| | General Public License (GNU GPL) | +| | as published by the Free Software | +| | Foundation, either version 3 of | +| | the License, or (at your option) | +| | any later version. The code is | +| | distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; | +| | without even the implied warrant | +| | y of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS | +| | FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See t | +| | he GNU GPL for more details. | +| | | +| | As additional permission under G | +| | NU GPL version 3 section 7, you | +| | may distribute non-source (e.g., | +| | minimized or compacted) forms of | +| | that code without the copy of th | +| | e GNU GPL normally required by | +| | section 4, provided you include | +| | this license notice and a URL | +| | through which recipients can acc | +| | ess the Corresponding Source. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +I thank Jaffar Rumith for bringing this issue to my attention. + +### Appendix B: Publishing Free JavaScript Programs As a Webmaster {#appendix-b-publishing-free-javascript-programs-as-a-webmaster .subheading} + +If you’re a webmaster deploying free JavaScript software on your site, +clearly and consistently publishing information about those files’ +licenses and source code helps your visitors make sure that they’re +running free software, and help you comply with license conditions. + +One method of stating the licenses is the one described above in +Appendix A. A second method, JavaScript license web labels, can be more +convenient for libraries of minified JavaScript code, especially when +you didn’t write them. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright The LibreJS project (<http://gnu.org/software/librejs/>) is +in need of JavaScript programmers. If you have the necessary skills, +please help us maintain this valuable browser extension. @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/lgpl.md b/docs/lgpl.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..093c001 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/lgpl.md @@ -0,0 +1,184 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The GNU Lesser General Public License {#the-gnu-lesser-general-public-license .chapter} +======================================== + +Version 3, 29 June 2007 + ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ +| | ``` {.display} | +| | Copyright © 2007 Free Software Found | +| | ation, Inc. http://fsf.org/ | +| | | +| | Everyone is permitted to copy and di | +| | stribute verbatim copies of this | +| | license document, but changing it is | +| | not allowed. | +| | ``` | ++--------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ + +This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the +terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, +supplemented by the additional permissions listed below. + +1. **Additional Definitions.** + + As used herein, “this License” refers to version 3 of the GNU Lesser + General Public License, and the “GNU GPL” refers to version 3 of the + GNU General Public License. + + “The Library” refers to a covered work governed by this License, + other than an Application or a Combined Work as defined below. + + An “Application” is any work that makes use of an interface provided + by the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. + Defining a subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a + mode of using an interface provided by the Library. + + A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an + Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library + with which the Combined Work was made is also called the + “Linked Version”. + + The “Minimal Corresponding Source” for a Combined Work means the + Corresponding Source for the Combined Work, excluding any source + code for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in + isolation, are based on the Application, and not on the + Linked Version. + + The “Corresponding Application Code” for a Combined Work means the + object code and/or source code for the Application, including any + data and utility programs needed for reproducing the Combined Work + from the Application, but excluding the System Libraries of the + Combined Work. + +2. **Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL.** + + You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License + without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL. + +3. **Conveying Modified Versions.** + + If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a + facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an + Application that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed + when the facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the + modified version: + + 1. under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort + to ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the + function or data, the facility still operates, and performs + whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or + 2. under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of + this License applicable to that copy. + +4. **Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.** + + The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from + a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such + object code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the + incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data + structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions + and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the + following: + + 1. Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the + Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are + covered by this License. + 2. Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this + license document. + +5. **Combined Works.** + + You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, + taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the + portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse + engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of + the following: + + 1. Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that + the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are + covered by this License. + 2. Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this + license document. + 3. For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during + execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among + these notices, as well as a reference directing the user to the + copies of the GNU GPL and this license document. + 4. Do one of the following: + 1. Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of + this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a + form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to + recombine or relink the Application with a modified version + of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, + in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for + conveying Corresponding Source. + 2. Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with + the Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at + run time a copy of the Library already present on the user’s + computer system, and (b) will operate properly with a + modified version of the Library that is interface-compatible + with the Linked Version. + + 5. Provide Installation Information, but only if you would + otherwise be required to provide such information under section + 6 of the GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information + is necessary to install and execute a modified version of the + Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the + Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If + you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany + the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding + Application Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the + Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of + the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.) + +6. **Combined Libraries.** + + You may place library facilities that are a work based on the + Library side by side in a single library together with other library + facilities that are not Applications and are not covered by this + License, and convey such a combined library under terms of your + choice, if you do both of the following: + + 1. Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work + based on the Library, uncombined with any other library + facilities, conveyed under the terms of this License. + 2. Give prominent notice with the combined library that part of it + is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the + accompanying uncombined form of the same work. + +7. **Revised Versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License.** + + The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions + of the GNU Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new + versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may + differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. + + Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the + Library as you received it specifies that a certain numbered version + of the GNU Lesser General Public License “or any later version” + applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and + conditions either of that published version or of any later version + published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library as you + received it does not specify a version number of the GNU Lesser + General Public License, you may choose any version of the GNU Lesser + General Public License ever published by the Free + Software Foundation. + + If the Library as you received it specifies that a proxy can decide + whether future versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License + shall apply, that proxy’s public statement of acceptance of any + version is permanent authorization for you to choose that version + for the Library. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/license-recommendations.md b/docs/license-recommendations.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a518396 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/license-recommendations.md @@ -0,0 +1,264 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. How to Choose a License for Your Own Work {#how-to-choose-a-license-for-your-own-work .chapter} +============================================ + +### Introduction {#introduction .subheading} + +People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their +project. We’ve written about this publicly before, but the information +has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and +license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a +single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. + +These recommendations are for works designed to do practical jobs. Those +include software, documentation, and some other things. Works of art, +and works that state a point of view, are different issues; the GNU +Project has no general stand about how they should be released, except +that they should all be usable without nonfree software (in particular, +without DRM[(1)](#FOOT1)). However, you might want to follow these +recommendations for art works that go with a particular program. + +The recommendations apply to licensing a work that you create—whether +that’s a modification of an existing work, or a new original work. They +do not address the issue of combining existing material under different +licenses. If you’re looking for help with that, please check our GPL +FAQ.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +After you see what we recommend here, if you’d like advice, you can +write to <licensing@gnu.org>. Note that it will probably take a few +weeks for the licensing team to get back to you; if you get no response +in a month, please write again. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule Copyright © 2011, 2013, 2014 Free +Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2011. This +version of it is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +### Contributing to an Existing Project {#contributing-to-an-existing-project .subheading} + +When you contribute to an existing project, you should usually release +your modified versions under the same license as the original work. It’s +good to cooperate with the project’s maintainers, and using a different +license for your modifications often makes that cooperation very +difficult. You should only do that when there is a strong reason to +justify it. + +One case where using a different license can be justified is when you +make major changes to a work under a noncopyleft license. If the version +you’ve created is considerably more useful than the original, then it’s +worth copylefting your work, for all the same reasons we normally +recommend copyleft. If you are in this situation, please follow the +recommendations below for licensing a new project. + +If you choose to release your contributions under a different license +for whatever reason, you must make sure that the original license allows +use of the material under your chosen license. For honesty’s sake, show +explicitly which parts of the work are under which license. + +### Software {#software .subheading} + +We recommend different licenses for different projects, depending mostly +on the software’s purpose. In general, we recommend using the strongest +copyleft license that doesn’t interfere with that purpose. Our essay +“What is Copyleft?” (@pageref{Copyleft}) explains the concept of +copyleft in more detail, and why it is generally the best licensing +strategy. + +For most programs, we recommend that you use the most recent version of +the GNU General Public License (GPL) (@pageref{GPL}) for your project. +Its strong copyleft is appropriate for all kinds of software, and +includes numerous protections for users’ freedom. + +Now for the exceptions. + +#### Small Programs {#small-programs .subsubheading} + +It is not worth the trouble to use copyleft for most small programs. We +use 300 lines as our benchmark: when a software package’s source code is +shorter than that, the benefits provided by copyleft are usually too +small to justify the inconvenience of making sure a copy of the license +always accompanies the software. + +For those programs, we recommend the Apache License 2.0.[(3)](#FOOT3) +This is a pushover (noncopyleft) software license that has terms to +prevent contributors and distributors from suing for patent +infringement. This doesn’t make the software immune to threats from +patents (a software license can’t do that), but it does prevent patent +holders from setting up a “bait and switch” where they release the +software under free terms then require recipients to agree to nonfree +terms in a patent license. + +Among the lax pushover licenses, Apache 2.0 is best; so if you are going +to use a lax pushover license, whatever the reason, we recommend using +that one. + +#### Libraries {#libraries .subsubheading} + +For libraries, we distinguish three kind of cases. + +Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against +restricted standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 +audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these +projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of +free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project’s code +would do. + +In these special situations, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. + +For all other libraries, we recommend some kind of copyleft. If +developers are already using an established alternative library released +under a nonfree license or a lax pushover license, then we recommend +using the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (@pageref{LGPL}). + +Unlike the first case, where the library implements an ethically +superior standard, here adoption for its own sake will not accomplish +any special objective goal, so there’s no reason to avoid copyleft +entirely. However, if you require developers who use your library to +release their whole programs under copyleft, they’ll simply use one of +the alternatives available, and that won’t advance our cause either. The +Lesser GPL was designed to fill the middle ground between these cases, +allowing proprietary software developers to use the covered library, but +providing a weak copyleft that gives users freedom regarding the library +code itself. + +For libraries that provide specialized facilities, and which do not face +entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition, we recommend using the +plain GNU GPL. For the reasons why, read “Why You Shouldn’t Use the +Lesser GPL for Your Next Library,” at +<http://gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html>. + +#### Server Software {#server-software .subsubheading} + +If it is likely that others will make improved versions of your program +to run on servers and not distribute their versions to anyone else, and +you’re concerned that this will put your released version at a +disadvantage, we recommend the GNU Affero General Public License +(AGPL).[(4)](#FOOT4) The AGPL’s terms are almost identical to the GPL’s; +the sole substantive difference is that it has an extra condition to +ensure that people who use the software over a network will be able to +get the source code for it. + +The AGPL’s requirement doesn’t address the problems that can arise *for +users* when they entrust their computing or their data to someone else’s +server. For instance, it won’t stop Service as a Software Substitute +(SaaSS) from denying users’ freedom[(5)](#FOOT5)—but most servers don’t +do SaaSS. For more about these issues, read “Why the Affero GPL,” at +<http://gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html>. + +### Documentation {#documentation .subheading} + +We recommend the GNU Free Documentation License (@pageref{FDL}) for +tutorials, reference manuals and other large works of documentation. +It’s a strong copyleft license for educational works, initially written +for software manuals, and includes terms which specifically address +common issues that arise when those works are distributed or modified. + +For short, secondary documentation works, such as a reference card, it +is better to use the GNU all-permissive license,[(6)](#FOOT6) since a +copy of the GFDL could hardly fit in a reference card. Don’t use CC-BY, +since it is incompatible with the GFDL. + +For man pages, we recommend the GFDL if the page is long, and the GNU +all-permissive license if it is short. + +Some documentation includes software source code. For instance, a manual +for a programming language might include examples for readers to follow. +You should both include these in the manual under the FDL’s terms, and +release them under another license that’s appropriate for software. +Doing so helps make it easy to use the code in other projects. We +recommend that you dedicate small pieces of code to the public domain +using CC0,[(7)](#FOOT7) and distribute larger pieces under the same +license that the associated software project uses. + +### Other Data for Programs {#other-data-for-programs .subheading} + +This section discusses all other works for practical use that you might +include with software. To give you some examples, this includes icons +and other functional or useful graphics, fonts, and geographic data. You +can also follow them for art, though we wouldn’t criticize if you don’t. + +If you are creating these works specifically for use with a software +project, we generally recommend that you release your work under the +same license as the software. There is no problem in doing so with the +licenses we have recommended: GPLv3, LGPLv3, AGPLv3, and GPLv2 can all +be applied to any kind of work—not just software—that is copyrightable +and has a clear preferred form for modification. Using the same license +as the software will help make compliance easier for distributors, and +avoids any doubt about potential compatibility issues. Using a different +free license may be appropriate if it provides some specific practical +benefit, like better cooperation with other free projects. + +If your work is not being created for use with a particular software +project, or if it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the same license as the +project, then we only recommend that you choose a copyleft license +that’s appropriate for your work. We have some of these listed on our +license list.[(8)](#FOOT8) If no license seems especially appropriate, +the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike[(9)](#FOOT9) license is a +copyleft that can be used for many different kinds of works. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See our campaign against Digital Restrictions Management, +at [DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright At <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See <http://apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> for the full +text of the license. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html> for the full text +of the license. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” for more on the +issue of SaaSS. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See +<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUAllPermissive>. @end +raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See <http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0> for more on the +license. @end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See +<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses>. @end +raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa> for +more on using this license. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/licenses-introduction.md b/docs/licenses-introduction.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..21dbeff --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/licenses-introduction.md @@ -0,0 +1,263 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +@begingroup @normalbottom @interlinepenalty = -200 + +1. Introduction to the Licenses {#introduction-to-the-licenses .chapter} +=============================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay is published in @fsfsthreecite} Written by Brett Smith and +Richard Stallman.\ + This part contains the text of the latest versions of the primary GNU +licenses: the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the GNU Lesser +General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Free Documentation License +(FDL). Though they are legal documents, they belong in this book of +essays because they are concrete expressions of the ideals of free +software. + +Software development for the GNU operating system began in 1984. Once +Richard Stallman had parts of the GNU system that were worth releasing, +he needed a license to release them under. Some free software licenses +already existed; these gave users permission to modify and redistribute +the software, but they also allowed using the code in proprietary +versions and proprietary programs. Using those licenses, GNU would have +failed to achieve its goal of delivering freedom to all users, because +middlemen would have converted the GNU code into proprietary software. + +So Stallman devised a license to assure every user the freedom to modify +and redistribute the software. It granted these permissions under one +key condition: whoever distributed the software must pass along the +authorization to modify and redistribute that same software, along with +the source code making it practical to do so. Stallman coined the term +“copyleft” (see “What Is Copyleft?” on @pageref{Copyleft}) to describe +this key twist of using the legal power of copyright to ensure freedom +for all users. + +GNU copyleft licenses were first developed for software, and later for +related areas such as software documentation. In them, the principles of +the free software movement, explained throughout the essays in this +book, take practical form. Each of their successive revisions has had to +wrestle with free software’s legal and practical obstacles and offers +numerous illustrations of how free software ideals are codified into +legal terms. + +### The Origins of the GPL {#the-origins-of-the-gpl .subheading} + +The first version of the GNU General Public License was published in +1989—but Stallman had been releasing software under copyleft licenses as +part of the GNU Project since as early as 1985. Prior to 1989, each +published GNU program had been covered by a license specifically +tailored for it. Instead of a single GNU General Public License, there +was a GNU CC General Public License, a GDB General Public License, and +so on. These licenses were identical except for minor differences: for +instance, terms about displaying license notices to users were different +for different programs and, unless it covered a program that was just +one source file, each license contained the name of the program it +applied to. + +By 1989, Stallman had had enough experience with different GNU packages +under slightly different licenses to conclude that it was crucial to +unify them into one license that would cover all these packages. He +worked with Jerry Cohen, an attorney at Perkins Smith & Cohen LLP, to +collect concepts from all the different licenses written up to that +point, and bring them together into one license. It was thus that on +1 February 1989 the GNU General Public License was born. + +The first version of the license sought to ensure two results: first, +that all derived works of the software would be released under the same +license and, second, that everyone who received the software would have +a chance to get the source code. These requirements implement a strong +copyleft by blocking the three main ways of making programs proprietary: +with copyright, with end-user license agreements, and by not +distributing source code. + +In comparison to the program-specific licenses that had preceded it, GPL +version 1 featured few substantial changes—the GPL was evolutionary, not +revolutionary—but it made a big practical difference. Previously, +developers who had wanted to copyleft a program had needed to tailor one +of the existing licenses to that program. Many had not bothered. With +the release of the GPL, those developers had a license they could use +out of the box to provide all of their users with freedom to share and +change the software. It was a powerful tool. + +### Version 2 {#version2 .subheading} + +After the 1981 US Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Diehr, the US +Patent and Trademark Office began issuing patents for software. Software +patents threaten free software and proprietary software alike (see part +IV in this book), and Stallman realized that they could subvert the +copyleft in the GNU GPL. + +By selectively issuing patent licenses, patent holders can arbitrarily +control how the software under them is distributed or modified. A patent +holder can give one party permission to resell the program, another +permission to develop and use a modified version at her company, and a +third permission to do all the activities that the GPL itself allows. +They can demand whatever they wish in exchange for these permissions. +They have this power over any software that implements the patented +idea, whether or not they have modified or distributed it themselves. +This power threatens free software because third parties with patents +can impose restrictions on free software users and developers. + +If patent holders don’t distribute or modify software, then a software +license based on copyright like the GPL can’t control their activities: +they haven’t done anything that requires permission under the license. +But the software license can stop each of the program’s distributors +from entering limiting agreements with the patent holder. Enter GPL +version 2: a new section in the license (sec. 7) explicitly says that if +parties are subject to other legal agreements—such as a patent +license—that contradict the GPL’s terms, then the licensee must refrain +from distributing the software at all. As a result, any party that wants +to distribute or modify the software, and also obtain a patent license, +must ensure that the terms of that license are consistent with all of +the GPL’s conditions: recipients of the software must receive it under +the same terms, with no additional restrictions, and have the means to +get the source code. + +This new section protected the integrity of the distribution system for +GPL-covered software. A fundamental principle of the license is that +every licensee, from the most humble individual to the largest +corporation, has the exact same rights to share and change the software. +Patent holders who do not distribute the software themselves and +selectively issues patent licenses could potentially interfere with this +goal, splitting licensees into different groups however they see fit. +Section 7 of GPL version 2 prevents this abuse. + +### The LGPL {#the-lgpl .subheading} + +The GPL worked well for the programming tools, utilities, and games that +were released by the GNU Project in the early years; however, Stallman +recognized that releasing the recently developed GNU C Library the same +way could backfire. Aside from some extensions, the GNU C Library was to +be a compatible replacement for the Unix C Library, so any C program +would be able link with either one. If proprietary C programs were not +allowed to use the GNU C Library, they would simply use the Unix +library. Being strict in this case would gain nothing. + +Stallman decided to compromise with a modified copyleft: one that would +protect the freedom of the library itself, but not that of the programs +that use it. This idea was implemented in a license originally called +the GNU Library General Public License, first published as version 2.0, +in June 1991. The original LGPL stated Conditions like the GPL’s—with an +important exception: if someone else’s program used the library only by +referring to it as a library, that program’s source could be distributed +under license terms of the author’s choosing. However, the executable +made by combining the program and the library had to come with a copy of +the LGPL and source code for the library, and provide some mechanism for +users who have modified the library to update the executable to use +their modified library. + +How does a developer use the work as a library in order to take +advantage of the special set of conditions provided by LGPLv2? Think of +a computer program as a series of instructions for doing a particular +job: compiling or linking the program with a library provides the +programmer with a means to say, “When the program gets to this point, +get further instructions from the library, and come back here when those +are done.” Libraries are commonly used in software development because +they make the effort less repetitive and less error prone: programmers +don’t have to reinvent the wheel—and perhaps introduce bugs in the +process—every time they want to accomplish a particular task. Because +libraries are so widely created and used, developers have the means to +readily take advantage of the LGPL’s additional permissions. + +Version 2.0 of the license worked as intended: in some situations, +proprietary software developers chose to use an LGPL-covered library +over a proprietary alternative, and users received the freedom to share +and change that library. This did not produce an “ideal” outcome—where +the user had complete control over the entire program—but in these cases +the GPL would not have achieved that ideal outcome either. The LGPL +assured the users some freedom where they would have otherwise had none. + +The name “Library GPL” led some free software developers to assume all +libraries ought on principle to be licensed this way, but that was not +the intent—when a free library has no proprietary competitor, releasing +it under the GNU GPL can benefit free software. To avoid this unintended +message, Stallman renamed this license to the Lesser General Public +License, and incremented the version number to 2.1 to reflect the +relatively minor changes in the text: the license sported a new +preamble, a few wording clarifications, and allowed programs to make +their calls to the library through special system facilities for shared +libraries where those are available. The Lesser General Public License +version 2.1 was released in February 1999. + +### The FDL {#the-fdl .subheading} + +At the turn of the century, free software was growing much faster than +it had been previously; the documentation, however, was not keeping +pace. Stallman was concerned about this failure and wrote about it in +“Free Software Needs Free Documentation” (@pageref{Free Doc}). + +While there are some similarities between software and +documentation—they are both works that are meant for practical use—there +are important differences in the ways they can be used. The GPL and the +LGPL were not suitable for manuals. + +For some time, GNU packages had been using an untitled, simple, ad hoc +copyleft license for each manual. Since each manual’s license was +different, text could not be copied from one manual to another. So +Stallman wrote the GNU Free Documentation License, a copyleft license +designed primarily for software documentation and other practical +written works. + +The FDL was first published in March 2000. The principles of the +copyleft remain the same: everyone who receives a copy of the work +should be able to modify and redistribute it. Where the FDL differs from +the software licenses is in the details of its implementation: +conditions about how to attribute the work and provide “source code”—an +editable version of the document—are different. + +### Version 3 {#version3 .subheading} + +During the 1990s, as free software became more popular, the GPL emerged +as the clear copyleft license of choice for the community, and was +adopted by the majority of free software projects; at the same time, +however, proprietary developers had come up with methods of effectively +denying users the freedoms that the GPL was meant to protect, without +actually violating the GPL. In addition, there were other practices that +the GPL did not handle conveniently. To deal with these issues called +for an updated version of the license. + +Around 2002, Stallman and others at the Free Software Foundation began +discussing how to update the GPL, and the LGPL along with it. The FSF +established a public review process, run with help from attorneys at the +Software Freedom Law Center, to catch possible problems before actually +releasing the new licenses. Committees of advisors from the community +studied issues raised by public comments and reported the various +positions and arguments to Stallman, who decided what policy to adopt; +then he wrote license text with advice and suggestions from the +attorneys. The importance of the changes made are explained in “Why +Upgrade to GPLv3” (@pageref{Why V3}). + +Version 3 used new terminology to promote uniform interpretations in +different jurisdictions, and modified some requirements to fit new +practices in the free software community. Beyond that, it introduced +several new conditions to strengthen the copyleft and thereby the free +software community as a whole. For instance, it + +- blocked distributors from restricting users by building hardware + that rejects the users’ modified versions (“tivoization”); +- allowed code to carry limited additional requirements, for + compatibility with some other popular free software licenses; +- and strengthened patent requirements by providing clear terms to + handle patent cross-licenses, which are common arrangements between + large patent-holding companies. + +Both GPLv3 and LGPLv3 included terms to address all of these issues, and +were finally released on 29 June 2007. These licenses are the state of +the art in copyleft, going farther than any other software license to +protect users’ freedom and bring about a world in harmony with the +ideals expressed in this book. + +@endgroup + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/limit-patent-effect.md b/docs/limit-patent-effect.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f134e96 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/limit-patent-effect.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Giving the Software Field Protection from Patents {#giving-the-software-field-protection-frompatents .chapter} +==================================================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ See also my article “Patent Reform Is Not Enough,” +at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html>. +@medskip @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2012, 2013 Free Software +Foundation\ + A version of this article was first published on the Wired web site, as +“Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate +Them” (Wired, 1 November 2012, +<http://wired.com/opinion/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/>).\ + It was published on <http://gnu.org> in 2012. This version is part of +@fsfsthreecite} + +Patents threaten every software developer, and the patent wars we have +long feared have broken out. Software developers and software +users—which, in our society, is most people—need software to be free of +patents. + +The patents that threaten us are often called “software patents,” but +that term is misleading. Such patents are not about any specific +program. Rather, each patent describes some practical idea, and says +that anyone carrying out the idea can be sued. So it is clearer to call +them “computational idea patents.” + +The US patent system doesn’t label patents to say this one’s a “software +patent” and that one isn’t. Software developers are the ones who make a +distinction between the patents that threaten us—those that cover ideas +that can be implemented in software—and the rest. For example, if the +patented idea is the shape of a physical structure or a chemical +reaction, no program can implement that idea; that patent doesn’t +threaten the software field. But if the idea that’s patented is a +computation, that patent’s barrel points at software developers and +users. + +This is not to say that computational idea patents prohibit only +software. These ideas can also be implemented in hardware—and many of +them have been. Each patent typically covers both hardware *and* +software implementations of the idea. + +### The Special Problem of Software {#the-special-problem-of-software .subheading} + +Still, software is where computational idea patents cause a special +problem. In software, it’s easy to implement thousands of ideas together +in one program. If 10 percent are patented, that means hundreds of +patents threaten it. + +When Dan Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation studied one large +program (Linux, which is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system) +in 2004, he found 283 US patents that appeared to cover computing ideas +implemented in the source code of that program. That same year, a +magazine estimated that Linux was .25 percent of the whole GNU/Linux +system. Multiplying 300 by 400 we get the order-of-magnitude estimate +that the system as a whole was *threatened by around 100,000 patents.* + +If half of those patents were eliminated as “bad quality”—mistakes of +the patent system, that is—it would not really change things. Whether +100,000 patents or 50,000, it’s the same disaster. This is why it’s a +mistake to limit our criticism of software patents to just “patent +trolls” or “bad quality” patents. The worst patent aggressor today is +Apple, which isn’t a “troll” by the usual definition; I don’t know +whether Apple’s patents are “good quality,” but the better the patent’s +“quality” the more dangerous its threat. + +We need to fix the whole problem, not just part of it. + +The usual suggestions for correcting this problem legislatively involve +changing the criteria for granting patents—for instance, to ban issuance +of patents on computational practices and systems to perform them. This +approach has two drawbacks. + +First, patent lawyers are clever at reformulating patents to fit +whatever rules may apply; they transform any attempt at limiting the +substance of patents into a requirement of mere form. For instance, many +US computational idea patents describe a system including an arithmetic +unit, an instruction sequencer, a memory, plus controls to carry out a +particular computation. This is a peculiar way of describing a computer +running a program that does a certain computation; it was designed to +make the patent application satisfy criteria that the US patent system +was believed for a time to require. + +Second, the US already has many thousands of computational idea patents, +and changing the criteria to prevent issuing more would not get rid of +the existing ones. We would have to wait almost 20 years for the problem +to be entirely corrected through the expiration of these patents. We +could envision legislating the abolition of these existing patents, but +that is probably unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court has perversely +insisted that Congress can extend private privileges at the expense of +the public’s rights but that it can’t go in the other direction.) + +### A Different Approach: Limit Effect, Not Patentability {#a-different-approach-limit-effect-not-patentability .subheading} + +My suggestion is to change the *effect* of patents. We should legislate +that developing, distributing, or running a program on generally used +computing hardware does not constitute patent infringement. This +approach has several advantages: + +- It does not require classifying patents or patent applications as + “software” or “not software.” +- It provides developers and users with protection from both existing + and potential future computational idea patents. +- Patent lawyers cannot defeat the intended effect by writing + applications differently. + +This approach doesn’t entirely invalidate existing computational idea +patents, because they would continue to apply to implementations using +special-purpose hardware. This is an advantage because it eliminates an +argument against the legal validity of the plan. The US passed a law +some years ago shielding surgeons from patent lawsuits, so that even if +surgical procedures are patented, surgeons are safe. That provides a +precedent for this solution. + +Software developers and software users need protection from patents. +This is the only legislative solution that would provide full protection +for all. We could then go back to competing or cooperating…without the +fear that some stranger will wipe away our work. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/linux-and-gnu.md b/docs/linux-and-gnu.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..80fa451 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/linux-and-gnu.md @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Linux and the GNU System {#linux-and-the-gnu-system .chapter} +=========================== + +Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU +system[(1)](#FOOT1) every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar +turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often +called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically +the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a +part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the +system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that +you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but +useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete +operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU +operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or +GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really +distributions of GNU/Linux. + +Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which is +Linux, and the whole system, which they also call “Linux.” The ambiguous +use of the name doesn’t help people understand. These users often think +that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a +bit of help. + +Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have +generally heard the whole system called “Linux” as well, they often +envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the +kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished +writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free +software to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most +everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available. + +What they found was no accident—it was the not-quite-complete GNU +system. The available free software[(3)](#FOOT3) added up to a complete +system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. +In the GNU Manifesto[(4)](#FOOT4) we set forth the goal of developing a +free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement[(5)](#FOOT5) +of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU +system. By the time Linux was started, GNU was almost finished. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule Copyright © 1997–2002, 2007, 2014 +Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1997. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular +program for a particular job. For example, Linus Torvalds set out to +write a Unix-like kernel (Linux); Donald Knuth set out to write a text +formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (the X +Window System). It’s natural to measure the contribution of this kind of +project by specific programs that came from the project. + +If we tried to measure the GNU Project’s contribution in this way, what +would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their “Linux +distribution,” GNU software[(6)](#FOOT6) was the largest single +contingent, around 28 percent of the total source code, and this +included some of the essential major components without which there +could be no system. Linux itself was about 3 percent. (The proportions +in 2008 are similar: in the “main” repository of gNewSense, Linux is 1.5 +percent and GNU packages are 15 percent.) So if you were going to pick a +name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the +most appropriate single choice would be “GNU.” + +But that is not the deepest way to consider the question. The GNU +Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software +packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler,[(7)](#FOOT7) +although we did that. It was not a project to develop a text editor, +although we developed one. The GNU Project set out to develop *a +complete free Unix-like system:* GNU. + +Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the +system, and they all deserve credit for their software. But the reason +it is *an integrated system*—and not just a collection of useful +programs—is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a +list of the programs needed to make a *complete* free system, and we +systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the +list. We wrote essential but unexciting[(8)](#FOOT8) components because +you can’t have a system without them. Some of our system components, the +programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we +wrote many components that are not tools.[(9)](#FOOT9) We even developed +a chess game, GNU Chess, because a complete system needs games too. + +By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the +kernel. We had also started a kernel, the GNU Hurd +(<http://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html>), which runs on top of Mach. +Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected; the GNU +Hurd started working reliably in 2001, but it is a long way from being +ready for people to use in general.[(10)](#FOOT10) + +Fortunately, we didn’t have to wait for the Hurd, because of Linux. Once +Torvalds freed Linux in 1992, it fit into the last major gap in the GNU +system. People could then combine Linux with the GNU +system[(11)](#FOOT11) to make a complete free system—a version of the +GNU system which also contained Linux. The GNU/Linux system, in other +words. + +Making them work well together was not a trivial job. Some GNU +components[(12)](#FOOT12) needed substantial change to work with Linux. +Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work “out of +the box” was a big job, too. It required addressing the issue of how to +install and boot the system—a problem we had not tackled, because we +hadn’t yet reached that point. Thus, the people who developed the +various system distributions did a lot of essential work. But it was +work that, in the nature of things, was surely going to be done by +someone. + +The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as *the* GNU system. +The FSF funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU +C Library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest +GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes. The +FSF also funded an early stage of the development of Debian GNU/Linux. + +Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often +called “distros”). Most of them include nonfree software—their +developers follow the philosophy associated with Linux rather than that +of GNU. But there are also completely free GNU/Linux +distros.[(13)](#FOOT13) The FSF supports computer facilities for +gNewSense (<http://gnewsense.org>). + +Making a free GNU/Linux distribution is not just a matter of eliminating +various nonfree programs. Nowadays, the usual version of Linux contains +nonfree programs too. These programs are intended to be loaded into I/O +devices when the system starts, and they are included, as long series of +numbers, in the “source code” of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux +distributions now entails maintaining a free version of Linux +(<http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux>) too. + +Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don’t confuse the public by +using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the +essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is +basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you’re talking about +this combination, please call it “GNU/Linux.” + +This article and “The GNU Project” (@pageref{GNU Project}) are good +choices for promoting “GNU/Linux.” If you mention Linux, the kernel, and +want to add a further reference, the FOLDOC (the Free On-Line Dictionary +of Computing) web address, <http://foldoc.org/linux>, is a good URL to +use. + +### Postscripts {#postscripts .subheading} + +Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free +Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was +developed at UC Berkeley. It was nonfree in the 80s, but became free in +the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost +certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD +system.[(14)](#FOOT14) + +People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like +GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free +software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from +GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with +GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and +its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are +two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did +not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD +would not fit the situation.[(15)](#FOOT15) + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Category GNU Operating System} for information +on GNU system. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright For more information, see both “GNU Users Who Have Never +Heard of GNU,” at +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html>, and “Overview of +the GNU System,” at <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html>. @end +raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html> for the “GNU +Manifesto.” @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Initial Announcement} for the “Initial +Announcement.” @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Category GNU Software} for more information on +GNU software. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/software/gcc/> for the GCC homepage. +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright These unexciting but essential components include the GNU +assembler (GAS) and the linker (GNU ld), both are now part of the GNU +Binutils package (<http://gnu.org/software/binutils/>), GNU tar +(<http://gnu.org/software/tar/>), and many more. @end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright For instance, The Bourne Again Shell (BASH), the PostScript +interpreter Ghostscript +(<http://gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ghostscript.html>), and the GNU C +Library (<http://gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html>) are not programming +tools. Neither are GNUCash, GNOME, and GNU Chess. @end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-and-linux.html> for +why the FSF developed the GNU Hurd kernel. @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright See “Notes for Linux Release 0.01,” at +[http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/\ +historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01](http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/%3Cbr%3Ehistorical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01). +@end raggedright + +### [(12)](#DOCF12) + +@raggedright For instance, the GNU C Library +(<http://gnu.org/software/libc/libc.html>). @end raggedright + +### [(13)](#DOCF13) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/distros/> for a list of all the +completely free distributions we know about. @end raggedright + +### [(14)](#DOCF14) + +@raggedright Since that was written, a nearly-all-free Windows-like +system has been developed, but technically it is not at all like GNU or +Unix, so it doesn’t really affect this issue. Most of the kernel of +Solaris has been made free, but if you wanted to make a free system out +of that, aside from replacing the missing parts of the kernel, you would +also need to put it into GNU or BSD. @end raggedright + +### [(15)](#DOCF15) + +@raggedright On the other hand, in the years since this article was +written, the GNU C Library has been ported to several versions of the +BSD kernel, which made it straightforward to combine the GNU system with +that kernel. Just as with GNU/Linux, these are indeed variants of GNU, +and are therefore called, for instance, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD +depending on the kernel of the system. Ordinary users on typical +desktops can hardly distinguish between GNU/Linux and GNU/\*BSD. @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7f2d387 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/misinterpreting-copyright.md @@ -0,0 +1,637 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors {#misinterpreting-copyrighta-series-oferrors .chapter} +=============================================== + +@begingroup @advance@vsize by 6pt Something strange and dangerous is +happening in copyright law. Under the US Constitution, copyright exists +to benefit users—those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or +run software—not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as +people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright +restrictions imposed on them “for their own benefit,” the US government +is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into +obedience with harsh new penalties. + +How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their +stated purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that +purpose? To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United +States copyright law: the US Constitution. + +### Copyright in the US Constitution {#copyright-in-the-us-constitution .subheading} + +When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were +entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected. The founders +of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a +natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for +the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright +system with this clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8): + +> \[Congress shall have the power\] to promote the Progress of Science +> and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and +> Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and +> Discoveries. + +The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means +benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in *Fox Film v. +Doyal,*[(1)](#FOOT1) the court said, + +> The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in +> conferring the \[copyright\] monopoly lie in the general benefits +> derived by the public from the labors of authors. + +This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not *required* by +the Constitution, only *permitted* as an option—and why it is supposed +to last for “limited times.” If copyright were a natural right, +something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could +justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more +than everyone’s house should become public property after a certain +lapse of time from its construction. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 2002, 2003, +2007, 2009–2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2002. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +### The “Copyright Bargain” {#the-copyright-bargain .subheading} + +The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to +publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, +it does this to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for +authors to write more and publish more. In effect, the government spends +the public’s natural rights, on the public’s behalf, as part of a deal +to bring the public more published works. Legal scholars call this +concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a government purchase of a +highway or an airplane using taxpayers’ money, except that the +government spends our freedom instead of our money. + +But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public? +Many alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue +of copyright policy is part of this question. If we misunderstand the +nature of the question, we will tend to decide the issues badly. + +The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In +practice, authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the +publishers, not the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of +the benefits, though authors may get a small portion. Thus it is usually +the publishers that lobby to increase copyright powers. To better +reflect the reality of copyright rather than the myth, this article +refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders of copyright +powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as “readers,” +even though using them does not always mean reading, because “the users” +is remote and abstract. + +### The First Error: “Striking a Balance” {#the-first-error-striking-a-balance .subheading} + +The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading +public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a +means toward that end. Readers’ interests and publishers’ interests are +thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in +misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the +publishers to the same level of importance as the readers. + +It is often said that US copyright law is meant to “strike a balance” +between the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this +interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated +in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to +the copyright bargain. + +But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different +conceptually, and different in their implications. The balance concept +assumes that the readers’ and publishers’ interests differ in importance +only quantitatively, in *how much weight* we should give them, and in +what actions they apply to. The term “stakeholders” is often used to +frame the issue in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a +policy decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative +distinction between the readers’ and publishers’ interests which is at +the root of the government’s participation in the copyright bargain. + +The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great +protection for the public in the copyright bargain—the idea that +copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, +never in the name of the publishers—is discarded by the “balance” +interpretation. Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an +end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the +“balance” concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of +someone other than the public. + +As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance” concept is to +reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The +copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the +readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this +burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that +publishers will benefit from additional privilege. Unless harm to the +readers can be proved, sufficient to “outweigh” this benefit, we are led +to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege +they request. + +Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and readers +denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it. + +### Balancing against What? {#balancing-against-what .subheading} + +When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of +the public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal—best +for the public, not for the other party in the agreement. + +For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build +highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the +public’s money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the +price down. + +As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors +will not bid that low. Although not entitled to special consideration, +they have the usual rights of citizens in a free society, including the +right to refuse disadvantageous contracts; even the lowest bid will be +high enough for some contractor to make money. So there is indeed a +balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate balancing of two +interests each with claim to special consideration. It is a balance +between a public goal and market forces. The government tries to obtain +for the taxpaying motorists the best deal they can get in the context of +a free society and a free market. + +In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of +our money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government’s +responsibility to spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even greater +than its responsibility to spend our money thus. Governments must never +put the publishers’ interests on a par with the public’s freedom. + +### Not “Balance” but “Trade-Off” {#not-balance-but-trade-off .subheading} + +The idea of balancing the readers’ interests against the publishers’ is +the wrong way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two +interests to be weighed: two interests *of the readers.* Readers have an +interest in their own freedom in using published works; depending on +circumstances, they may also have an interest in encouraging publication +through some kind of incentive system. + +The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come to stand as +shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance” between the readers and +the publishers. Therefore, to use the word “balance” in regard to the +readers’ two interests would be confusing.[(2)](#FOOT2) We need another +term. + +In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and +cannot completely achieve both of them, we call this a “trade-off.” +Therefore, rather than speaking of “striking the right balance” between +parties, we should speak of “finding the right trade-off between +spending our freedom and keeping it.” + +### The Second Error: Maximizing One Output {#the-second-error-maximizing-one-output .subheading} + +The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of +maximizing—not just increasing—the number of published works. The +erroneous concept of “striking a balance” elevated the publishers to +parity with the readers; this second error places them far above the +readers. + +When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity +in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for +other purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and +choosing a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The +principle of diminishing returns suggests that spending all our money on +one particular good is likely to be an inefficient allocation of +resources; we generally choose to keep some money for another use. + +Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase. +The first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and +whose sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we +trade additional freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each +trade is a bigger sacrifice than the last, while bringing a smaller +increment in literary activity. Well before the increment becomes zero, +we may well say it is not worth its incremental price; we would then +settle on a bargain whose overall result is to increase the amount of +publication, but not to the utmost possible extent. + +Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser, +more advantageous bargains in advance—it dictates that the public must +cede nearly all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little +more publication. + +### The Rhetoric of Maximization {#the-rhetoric-of-maximization .subheading} + +In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost +to freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public +copying is illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance, +the publishers call people who copy “pirates,” a smear term designed to +equate sharing information with your neighbor with attacking a ship. +(This smear term was formerly used by authors to describe publishers who +found lawful ways to publish unauthorized editions; its modern use by +the publishers is almost the reverse.) This rhetoric directly rejects +the constitutional basis for copyright, but presents itself as +representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system. + +The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it so pervades the +media that few people realize how radical it is. It is effective because +if copying by the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never +object to the publishers’ demand that we surrender our freedom to do so. +In other words, when the public is challenged to show why publishers +should not receive some additional power, the most important reason of +all—“We want to copy”—is disqualified in advance. + +This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except +using side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today +almost exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom +to distribute copies as a legitimate public value. + +As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to +argue that “A certain practice is reducing our sales—or we think it +might—so we presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount, +and therefore it should be prohibited.” We are led to the outrageous +conclusion that the public good is measured by publishers’ sales: What’s +good for General Media is good for the USA. + +### The Third Error: Maximizing Publishers’ Power {#the-third-error-maximizing-publishers-power .subheading} + +Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of +maximizing publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer +that this requires giving them the maximum possible powers—making +copyright cover every imaginable use of a work, or applying some other +legal tool such as “shrink wrap” licenses to equivalent effect. This +goal, which entails the abolition of “fair use” and the “right of first +sale,” is being pressed at every available level of government, from +states of the US to international bodies. + +This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the +creation of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the +plots of some of his plays from works others had published a few decades +before, so if today’s copyright law had been in effect, his plays would +have been illegal. + +Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless +of cost to the public, maximizing publishers’ power is the wrong way to +get it. As a means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating. + +### The Results of the Three Errors {#the-results-of-the-three-errors .subheading} + +The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader +powers for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright, as +it emerges distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis +for saying no. Legislators give lip service to the idea that copyright +serves the public, while in fact giving publishers whatever they ask +for. + +For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. +483,[(3)](#FOOT3) a 1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 +years: + +> I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of +> whether the current term of copyright adequately protects the +> interests of authors and the related question of whether the term of +> protection continues to provide a sufficient incentive for the +> creation of new works of authorship.[(4)](#FOOT4) + +This bill extended the copyright on already published works written +since the 1920s. This change was a giveaway to publishers with no +possible benefit to the public, since there is no way to retroactively +increase now the number of books published back then. Yet it cost the +public a freedom that is meaningful today—the freedom to redistribute +books from that era. Note the use of the propaganda term, +“protect,”[(5)](#FOOT5) which embodies the second of the three errors. + +The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For +works made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the +present 75 years. Theoretically this would increase the incentive to +write new works; but any publisher that claims to need this extra +incentive should be required to substantiate the claim with projected +balance sheets for 75 years in the future. + +Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers’ arguments: a +law extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially called +the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of its +sponsors who died earlier that year. We usually call it the Mickey Mouse +Copyright Act, since we presume its real motive was to prevent the +copyright on the appearance of Mickey Mouse from expiring. Bono’s widow, +who served the rest of his term, made this statement: + +> Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last +> forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the +> Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our +> copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there +> is also Jack Valenti’s[(6)](#FOOT6) proposal for term to last forever +> less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next +> Congress.[(7)](#FOOT7) + +The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law on +the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the +Constitution’s goal of promoting progress. The court responded by +abdicating its responsibility to judge the question; on copyright, the +Constitution requires only lip service. + +Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many +copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just +to be nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all. + +An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was +designed to bring back what was then called “copy protection”—now known +as DRM (Digital Restrictions Management)[(8)](#FOOT8)—which users +already detested, by making it a crime to defeat the restrictions, or +even publish information about how to defeat them. This law ought to be +called the “Domination by Media Corporations Act” because it effectively +offers publishers the chance to write their own copyright law. It says +they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use of a work, and +these restrictions take the force of law provided the work contains some +sort of encryption or license manager to enforce them. + +One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a +recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was promulgated +by the World “Intellectual Property”[(9)](#FOOT9) Organization, an +organization dominated by copyright- and patent-holding interests, with +the aid of pressure from the Clinton administration; since the treaty +only increases copyright power, whether it serves the public interest in +any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far beyond what the +treaty required. + +Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to +the aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered fair +use. How did the publishers respond? Former representative Pat +Schroeder, now a lobbyist for the Association of American Publishers, +said that the publishers “could not live with what \[the libraries +were\] asking for.” Since the libraries were asking only to preserve +part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the +publishers had survived until the present day. + +Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed +this bill, showed how far the US Constitution’s view of copyright has +been disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal penalties, +were needed urgently because the “movie industry is worried,” as well as +the “music industry” and other “industries.” I asked him, “But is this +in the public interest?” His response was telling: “Why are you talking +about the public interest? These creative people don’t have to give up +their rights for the public interest!” The “industry” has been +identified with the “creative people” it hires, copyright has been +treated as its entitlement, and the Constitution has been turned upside +down. + +The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains +nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or +hardware that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use is +prohibited. + +Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free +software for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information about +how to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of Princeton +University was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the Recording +Industry Association of America (RIAA) into withdrawing a scientific +paper stating what he had learned about a proposed encryption system for +restricting access to recorded music. + +We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers’ +traditional freedoms—for instance, the freedom to lend a book to your +friend, to sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a library, to +buy it without giving your name to a corporate data bank, even the +freedom to read it twice. Encrypted e-books generally restrict all these +activities—you can read them only with special secret software designed +to restrict you. + +I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I hope +you will reject them too. If an e-book doesn’t give you the same +freedoms as a traditional paper book, don’t accept it! + +Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted e-books +risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested +in 2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference, because he had +written such a program in Russia, where it was lawful to do so. Now +Russia is preparing a law to prohibit it too, and the European Union +recently adopted one. + +Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not +because readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive +for other reasons, such as that computer display screens are not easy +surfaces to read from. We can’t rely on this happy accident to protect +us in the long term; the next attempt to promote e-books will use +“electronic paper”—book-like objects into which an encrypted, restricted +e-book can be downloaded. If this paper-like surface proves more +appealing than today’s display screens, we will have to defend our +freedom in order to keep it. Meanwhile, e-books are making inroads in +niches: NYU and other dental schools require students to buy their +textbooks in the form of restricted e-books. + +The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded +Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems Standards +and Certification Act” (SSSCA),[(10)](#FOOT10) which would require all +computers (and other digital recording and playback devices) to have +government-mandated copy-restriction systems. That is their ultimate +goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit any equipment +that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible for +the public to “tamper with” (i.e., modify for their own purposes). Since +free software is software that users can modify, we face here for the +first time a proposed law that explicitly prohibits free software for a +certain job. Prohibition of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC +adopts this rule, existing free software such as GNU Radio would be +censored. + +To block these bills and rules requires political action.[(11)](#FOOT11) + +### Finding the Right Bargain {#finding-the-right-bargain .subheading} + +What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a +bargain made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public +interest above all. The government’s duty when selling the public’s +freedom is to sell only what it must, and sell it as dearly as possible. +At the very least, we should pare back the extent of copyright as much +as possible while maintaining a comparable level of publication. + +Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive +bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it? + +One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and +observe the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in +publication occur, we will learn how much copyright power is really +necessary to achieve the public’s purposes. We must judge this by actual +observation, not by what publishers say will happen, because they have +every incentive to make exaggerated predictions of doom if their powers +are reduced in any way. + +Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be +adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy +dimension, it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of +copyright while maintaining the desired publication level. + +One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now +typically on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying to +ten years, starting from the date when a work is published, would be a +good first step. Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of +derivative works, could continue for a longer period. + +Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on unpublished +works does not directly limit readers’ freedom; whether we are free to +copy a work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving authors a +longer time to get a work published does no harm. Authors (who generally +do own the copyright prior to publication) will rarely choose to delay +publication just to push back the end of the copyright term. + +Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on +practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the +overall viability of publishing today. In most media and genres, +successful works are very profitable in just a few years, and even +successful works are usually out of print well before ten. Even for +reference works, whose useful life may be many decades, ten-year +copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued regularly, and +many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a +ten-year-old public domain version. + +Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, +we could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on +copyright at a literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, +a noted fantasy author sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying +that anything beyond five years was intolerable. + +But we don’t have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works. +Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to +the public interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for +specific uses and media. It would be foolish to pay for every highway +project at the rates necessary for the most difficult projects in the +most expensive regions of the country; it is equally foolish to “pay” +for all kinds of art with the greatest price in freedom that we find +necessary for any one kind. + +So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, +and movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can +reduce the duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many +such works to be published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have +a 20-year copyright, because of the expense of producing them. In my own +field, computer programming, three years should suffice, because product +cycles are even shorter than that. + +Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some +ways of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally +permitted even though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in +reducing this dimension of copyright power is to permit occasional +private small-quantity noncommercial copying and distribution among +individuals. This would eliminate the intrusion of the copyright police +into people’s private lives, but would probably have little effect on +the sales of published works. (It may be necessary to take other legal +steps to ensure that shrink-wrap licenses cannot be used to substitute +for copyright in restricting such copying.) The experience of Napster +shows that we should also permit noncommercial verbatim redistribution +to the general public—when so many of the public want to copy and share, +and find it so useful, only draconian measures will stop them, and the +public deserves to get what it wants. + +For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, +noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the +readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes (to get +jobs done), call for additional freedoms beyond that, including the +freedom to publish an improved version. See “The Free Software +Definition,” in this book, for an explanation of the freedoms that +software users should have. But it may be an acceptable compromise for +these freedoms to be universally available only after a delay of two or +three years from the program’s publication. + +Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public’s +wish to use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find +these proposals “unbalanced”; they may threaten to take their marbles +and go home, but they won’t really do it, because the game will remain +profitable and it will be the only game in town. + +As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media +companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements. It +would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply +restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright. Such +limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated contracts can require are +a standard part of the US legal system. + +### A Personal Note {#a-personal-note .subheading} + +I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I’ve become concerned +with copyright issues because there’s no avoiding them in the world of +computer networks, such as the Internet. As a user of computers and +networks for 30 years, I value the freedoms that we have lost, and the +ones we may lose next. As an author, I can reject the romantic mystique +of the author as semidivine creator, often cited by publishers to +justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers which these +authors will then sign away to publishers. + +Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check, +and proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask you to +accept one thing on my word alone: that authors like me don’t deserve +special power over you. If you wish to reward me further for the +software or books I have written, I would gratefully accept a check—but +please don’t surrender your freedom in my name. @endgroup + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 US 123, 1932. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See Julian Sanchez’s article “The Trouble with ‘Balance’ +Metaphors” (4 February 2011, +[http://juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-\ +metaphors/](http://juliansanchez.com/2011/02/04/the-trouble-with-balance-%3Cbr%3Emetaphors/)) +for an examination of “how the analogy between sound judgment and +balancing weights may constrain our thinking in unhealthy ways.” @end +raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright Congressional Record, S. 483, “The Copyright Term Extension +Act of 1995,” 2 March 1995, pp. S3390–4. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright Congressional Record, “Statement on Introduced Bills and +Joint Resolutions,” 2 March 1995, p. S3390, +<http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-03-02/pdf/CREC-1995-03-02-pt1-PgS3390-2.pdf>. +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Protection} for why use the term “protect” +should be avoided in connection with copyright. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright Jack Valenti was a longtime president of the Motion Picture +Association of America. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright Congressional Record, remarks of Rep. Bono, 7 October 1998, +p. H9952, +<http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-10-07/pdf/CREC-1998-10-07-pt1-PgH9946.pdf>. +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html> for +more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See “Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive +Mirage”( @pageref{Not IPR}) for an explanation of why this term is +problematic. @end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a +good mnemonic is “Consume, But Don’t Try Programming Anything,” but it +really stands for the “Consumer Broadband and Digital Television +Promotion Act.” @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +If you would like to help, I recommend the web sites +<http://defectivebydesign.org>, <http://publicknowledge.org>, and +<http://eff.org>. + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/nonfree-games.md b/docs/nonfree-games.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9bd86b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/nonfree-games.md @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Nonfree DRM’d Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad? {#nonfree-drmd-games-on-gnulinux-good-or-bad .chapter} +================================================= + +A well known company, Valve, that distributes nonfree computer games +with Digital Restrictions Management, recently announced it would +distribute these games for GNU/Linux. What good and bad effects can this +have? + +I suppose that availability of popular nonfree programs on GNU/Linux can +boost adoption of the system. However, the aim of GNU goes beyond +“success”; its purpose is to bring freedom to the users.[(1)](#FOOT1) +Thus, the larger question is how this development affects users’ +freedom. + +The problem with these games is not that they are +commercial.[(2)](#FOOT2) (We see nothing wrong with that.) It is not +that the developers sell copies;[(3)](#FOOT3) that’s not wrong either. +The problem is that the games contain software that is not free (free in +the sense of freedom, of course).[(4)](#FOOT4) + +Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical +because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different +issue, because it isn’t software.) If you want freedom, one requisite +for it is not having or running nonfree programs on your computer. That +much is clear. + +However, if you’re going to use these games, you’re better off using +them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid +the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.[(5)](#FOOT5) + +Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm and +good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it +might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux. My +guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct +harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these +games teach people in our community? + +Any GNU/Linux distro that comes with software to offer these games will +teach users that the point is not freedom. Nonfree software in GNU/Linux +distros[(6)](#FOOT6) already works against the goal of freedom. Adding +these games to a distro would augment that effect. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2013 Free +Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. A free game need not be +gratis. It is feasible to develop free games commercially, while +respecting your freedom to change the software you use. Since the art in +the game is not software, it does not need to be free. There is in fact +free game software developed by companies, as well as free games +developed noncommercially by volunteers. Crowdfunding development will +only get easier. + +But if we suppose that it is *not feasible* in the current situation to +develop a certain kind of free game—what would follow then? There’s no +good in writing it as a nonfree game. To have freedom in your computing, +requires rejecting nonfree software, pure and simple. You as a +freedom-lover won’t use the nonfree game if it exists, so you won’t lose +anything if it does not exist. + +If you want to promote the cause of freedom in computing, please take +care not to talk about the availability of these games on GNU/Linux as +support for our cause. Instead you could tell people about the +LibreGameWiki[(7)](#FOOT7) that attempts to catalog free games, the +FreeGameDev Forums,[(8)](#FOOT8) and the LibrePlanet Gaming Collective’s +free gaming night.[(9)](#FOOT9) + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) for more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Commercial} for an explanation of the +confusion the term “commercial” can create. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “Selling Free Software” (@pageref{Selling}) for more on +this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See our campaign at <http://upgradefromwindows8.org/> for +more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html> for an +explanation of why we don’t endorse certain (often popular) +distributions. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright See <https://libregamewiki.org/Main_Page>. @end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See <http://forum.freegamedev.net/index.php>. @end +raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See +<http://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:LibrePlanet_Gaming_Collective>. @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/not-ipr.md b/docs/not-ipr.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a757616 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/not-ipr.md @@ -0,0 +1,212 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Did You Say “Intellectual Property”?@entrybreak{}It’s a Seductive Mirage {#did-you-say-intellectual-propertyentrybreakitsaseductivemirage .chapter} +=========================================================================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, +2015 Richard Stallman\ + {This article was written in 2004 and published in Policy Futures in +Education, vol. 4, n. 4, pp. 334–336, 2006. This version is part of +@fsfsthreecite} It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, +and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three +separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot +and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term +did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the +confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to +reject the term entirely. + +According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the +widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that +followed the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” +Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. +(WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the +interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide +use dates from around 1990. + +The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking +about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights +for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal +philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but +only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like +physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change +them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies +that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias +introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them. + +The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often +asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or have +proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include +IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for +Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of +“exclusive rights regimes,” but referring to restrictions as “rights” is +doublethink too. + +Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a +mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other term. A +different name will not address the term’s deeper problem: +overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as “intellectual +property”—it is a mirage. The only reason people think it makes sense as +a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled them +about the laws in question. + +The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together +disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various +laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function +similarly. + +Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated +separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have +different rules, and raise different public policy issues. + +For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, +and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended +to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the +one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may +be worth paying in some fields and not in others. + +Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular +way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. +Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property,” +however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for +advertising. And these are just three out of many laws that the term +refers to. + +Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every +detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you +learn some fact about copyright law, you’d be wise to assume that patent +law is different. You’ll rarely go wrong! + +In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are +formulated using “intellectual property” will be false. For instance, +you’ll see claims that “its” purpose is to “promote innovation,” but +that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies. +Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is +copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it. Trademark law +is not concerned with innovation; if I start a tea store and call it +“rms tea,” that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas +in the same way as everyone else. Trade secret law is not concerned with +innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a +trade secret with nothing to do with innovation. + +You will also see assertions that “intellectual property” is concerned +with “creativity,” but really that only fits copyright law. More than +creativity is needed to make a patentable invention. Trademark law and +trade secret law have nothing to do with creativity; the name “rms tea” +isn’t creative at all, and neither is my secret list of tea customers. + +People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some +larger or smaller set of laws. For instance, rich countries often impose +unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of +these laws are among those called “intellectual property” laws, and +others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that +label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they +misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an +accurate term, such as “legislative colonization,” that gets to the +heart of the matter. + +Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law professors +who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the seductiveness of +the term “intellectual property,” and make general statements that +conflict with facts they know. For example, one professor wrote in 2006: + +> Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers +> of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to +> intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary, but…they +> tied Congress’s hands, restricting its power in multiple ways. + +That statement refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the US +Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That +clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret law, +or various others. The term “intellectual property” led that professor +to make a false generalization. + +The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic thinking. It +leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these +disparate laws have—that they create artificial privileges for certain +parties—and to disregard the details which form their substance: the +specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the +consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the form encourages +an “economistic” approach to all these issues. + +Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined +assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that amount +of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual +assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music +supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving +research. + +Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term +“intellectual property,” the specific issues raised by the various laws +become nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each +law—precisely what the term “intellectual property” encourages people to +ignore. For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether +music sharing should be allowed; patent law has nothing to do with this. +Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be +allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save +lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters. + +Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their +noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic +overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the +differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual property” pot +obstructs clear thinking about each one. + +Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual property” and any +generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish. +If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your +opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which +is any good. + +If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or +copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first +step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as +separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives +and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests. +Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have +a chance of considering them well. + +### Notes {#notes .subheading} + +- See also “The Curious History of Komongistan (Busting the Term + ‘Intellectual Property’),” at + <http://gnu.org/philosophy/komongistan.html>. +- Countries in Africa are a lot more similar than these laws, and + “Africa” is a coherent geographical concept; nonetheless, talking + about “Africa” instead of a specific country causes lots of + confusion.[(1)](#FOOT1) +- Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Nicolas Kayser-Bril, “Africa Is Not a Country,” +24 January 2014, +<http://theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton>. @end +raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright “Language Matters: Framing the Copyright Monopoly So We Can +Keep Our Liberties,” 14 July 2013, +[http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-\ +framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714](http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-%3Cbr%3Eframing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714). +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md b/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d886cf8 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/open-source-misses-the-point.md @@ -0,0 +1,472 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software {#why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-freesoftware .chapter} +==================================================== + +When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’ +essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and +to redistribute copies with or without changes.[(1)](#FOOT1) This is a +matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free +beer.” + +These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for +the individual users’ sake, but for society as a whole because they +promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become +even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly +digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free +software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general. + +Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the +public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students +to use the free GNU/Linux operating system.[(2)](#FOOT2) Most of these +users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we +developed this system and built the free software community, because +nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open +source,” attributing them to a different philosophy in which these +freedoms are hardly mentioned. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2007, 2008, +2010, 2012–2015 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2007. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +The free software movement has campaigned for computer users’ freedom +since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating +system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that +deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the +essential components of the system and designed the GNU General Public +License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed specifically +to protect freedom for all users of a program. + +Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the +goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free +software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of +“open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible +misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became +associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the +free software movement. + +Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing +campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives +by highlighting the software’s practical benefits, while not raising +issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other +supporters flatly rejected the free software movement’s ethical and +social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, +they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” +quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on +practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. +Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and +they make the same association. + +The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they +stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is +a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the +free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, +essential respect for the users’ freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of +open source considers issues in terms of how to make software +“better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an +inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of +“open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity +and success. [(3)](#FOOT3) + +For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social +problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. + +“Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software (or nearly +so[(4)](#FOOT4)), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because +different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any +other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom +in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. +If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free +software.” + +We in the free software movement don’t think of the open source camp as +an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want +people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being +mislabeled as open source supporters. + +### Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source {#practical-differences-between-free-software-and-open-source .subheading} + +In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those +of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would +qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free +software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are +too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, +“Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a +modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use +such licenses. + +Second, and more important in practice, many products containing +computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users +from installing different executables; only one privileged company can +make executables that can run in the device or can access its full +capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,” and the practice is +called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. +Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot +run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree. + +The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are +concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these +unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that +is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android +products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux. + +### Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source” {#common-misunderstandings-of-free-software-and-open-source .subheading} + +The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended +meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as +well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain +freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free +software, and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This +is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. +An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn’t present +other problems. + +Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their +own. We’ve looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so +clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For +instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works +well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed +replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and +this includes “open source software.” + +The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by +the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here[(5)](#FOOT5)) +was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not +the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their +definition agrees with our definition in most cases. + +However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source +software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can +look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free +software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of +open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open +source. + +Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its +advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. +According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software +meaning, simply that anyone can get copies of its source code +files.”[(6)](#FOOT6) I don’t think he deliberately sought to reject or +dispute the official definition. I think he simply applied the +conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the +term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use of +open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is +freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements +vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”[(7)](#FOOT7) + +The New York Times ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term +to refer to user beta testing[(8)](#FOOT8)—letting a few users try an +early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software +developers have practiced for decades. + +The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that +are published without a patent.[(9)](#FOOT9) Patent-free equipment +designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term “source +code” does not pertain to them. + +Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their +official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for +them than it is for us. The term “free software” has two natural +meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has +grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong +again. But the term “open source” has only one natural meaning, which is +different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no +succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes +for worse confusion. + +Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not +using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding +that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both +mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most +of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There are +many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.[(10)](#FOOT10) + +The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to +other activities, such as government, education, and science, where +there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software +licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have +in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They +stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory” or +“transparent”, or less than that. At worst, it has become a vacuous +buzzword.[(11)](#FOOT11) + +### Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always {#different-values-can-lead-to-similar-conclusionsbut-notalways .subheading} + +Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some +organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and +the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having +similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of this and +used it to criticize the entire left. + +Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our +disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical +groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on +the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases +to the same practical behavior—such as developing free software. + +As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source +camp often work together on practical projects such as software +development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views +can so often motivate different people to participate in the same +projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally +different views lead to very different actions. + +The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and +redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But +this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not +necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is +powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users’ +freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react +very differently to that. + +A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the +ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make +the program work so well without using our development model, but you +did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take +away our freedom, leading to its loss. + +The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, +but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my +work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free +replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend +it. + +### Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad {#powerful-reliable-software-can-be-bad .subheading} + +The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from +the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. If it +is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better. + +But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their +freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? +Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and +reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features, such as +spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed +upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open source +supporters want to implement them in open source programs. + +Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for +individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict +them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management +(DRM) (see our campaign against it, at +[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org)) and is the antithesis in +spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. And not just +in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM +developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to +change the software that implements the DRM. + +Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” +software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs +designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing +others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable +software for restricting users like you. The software would then be +delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it. + +This software might be open source and use the open source development +model, but it won’t be free software since it won’t respect the freedom +of the users that actually run it. If the open source development model +succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for +restricting you, that will make it even worse. + +### Fear of Freedom {#fear-of-freedom .subheading} + +The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp +from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free +software” made some people uneasy. That’s true: raising ethical issues +such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, +is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such +as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and +some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that +we ought to stop talking about these issues. + +That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They +figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only +about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they +might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, +especially business. + +This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of +open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and +even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only +at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with +its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas +of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not +teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not +enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free software takes +them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom. + +Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to +proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless companies +seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why +would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free +software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the +technical and practical convenience of specific free software. To spread +this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep +quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, but it is +dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem +like an eccentricity. + +That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved +with free software, especially its distributors, say little about +freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” +Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary +packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider +this an advantage rather than a flaw. + +Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux +distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does not +insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence. Most +GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open source” +discussion, which doesn’t say that freedom is a goal. The practices that +don’t uphold freedom and the words that don’t talk about freedom go hand +in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency, we need +more, not less, talk about freedom. + +### “FLOSS” and “FOSS” {#floss-and-foss .subheading} + +The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS”[(12)](#FOOT12) are used to be neutral +between free software and open source. If neutrality is your goal, +“FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is neutral. But if you +want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn’t the way. +Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom. + +### Rivals for Mindshare {#rivals-for-mindshare .subheading} + +“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare. “Free software” and “open +source” are different ideas but, in most people’s way of looking at +software, they compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become +habituated to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle to +their grasping the free software movement’s philosophy and thinking +about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software +with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually before +they recognize that we stand for something *else.* Any activity that +promotes the word “open” tends to extend the curtain that hides the +ideas of the free software movement. + +Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an +activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and +of itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side. +There are plenty of other good activities which call themselves “free” +or “libre.” Each contribution to those projects does a little extra good +on the side. With so many useful projects to choose from, why not choose +one which does extra good? + +### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} + +As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we +free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of +freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It’s free software and it +gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free +software” rather than “open source,” you help our cause. + +#### Note {#note .subsubheading} + +Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free +software developers (“Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding +Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in +Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, edited by J. Feller and +others (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), +[http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/\ +lakhaniwolf.pdf](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/%3Cbr%3Elakhaniwolf.pdf)) +says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that +software should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the +developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that +this is an ethical issue. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}) +for more on the operating system. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright For a typical example, see, for instance, Jay Lyman’s +article\ + “Open Source Is Woven Into the Latest, Hottest Trends”\ + (12 September 2013, [http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/\ +Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/%3Cbr%3EOpen-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html)). +@end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “How Free Software and Open Source Relate as Categories +of Programs,” at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html>. +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See <http://opensource.org/docs/osd> for the full +definition. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning...Was the Command Line +(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright Kansas Statewide Technology Architecture, “Information +Architecture,” version 8.0, 20.3.8, accessed 11 October 2001, +[https://web.archive.org/web/\ +20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf). +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright Mary Jane Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game +Design,” New York Times, online ed., 7 February 2009, +[http://www.nytimes.com/external/\ +gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-\ +design-37415.html](http://www.nytimes.com/external/%3Cbr%3Egigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-%3Cbr%3Edesign-37415.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright Karl Mathiesen and Tess Riley, “Texas Teenager Creates \$20 +Water Purifier to Tackle Toxic E-Waste Pollution,” 27 August 2015, +[http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-\ +toxic-e-waste-pollution](http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-%3Cbr%3Etoxic-e-waste-pollution). +@end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\ + <http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright Evgeny Morozov, “Open and Closed,” 16 March 2013, +<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html>. +@end raggedright + +### [(12)](#DOCF12) + +@raggedright See both @pageref{FLOSS} and the article “FLOSS and FOSS,” +at <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.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/).\ diff --git a/docs/pragmatic.md b/docs/pragmatic.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b57b7ef --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/pragmatic.md @@ -0,0 +1,165 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism {#copyleft-pragmatic-idealism .chapter} +=============================== + +Every decision a person makes stems from the person’s values and goals. +People can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, love, +survival, fun, and freedom, are just some of the goals that a good +person might have. When the goal is a matter of principle, we call that +idealism. + +My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading +freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, +replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make +our society better.[(1)](#FOOT1) + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule Copyright © 1998, 2003 Free Software +Foundation, Inc.\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +That’s the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written +the way it is—as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program +must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my +code available for use in free software, and not for use in proprietary +software, in order to encourage other people who write software to make +it free as well. I figure that since proprietary software developers use +copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use copyright to +give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use our code. + +Not everyone who uses the GNU GPL has this goal. Many years ago, a +friend of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under +noncopyleft terms, and he responded more or less like this: “Sometimes I +work on free software, and sometimes I work on proprietary software—but +when I work on proprietary software, I expect to get *paid.*” + +He was willing to share his work with a community that shares software, +but saw no reason to give a handout to a business making products that +would be off-limits to our community. His goal was different from mine, +but he decided that the GNU GPL was useful for his goal too. + +If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not +enough—you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. In +other words, you need to be “pragmatic.” Is the GPL pragmatic? Let’s +look at its results. + +Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because the +GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an industry +consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC normally makes +its work as proprietary as can be. But they made the C++ front end free +software, because the GNU GPL said that was the only way they could +release it. The C++ front end included many new files, but since they +were meant to be linked with GCC, the GPL did apply to them. The benefit +to our community is evident. + +Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end +proprietary; they proposed to release it as ‘`.o`’ files, and let users +link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the +GPL’s requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the +requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C +front end free software. + +Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues to bring us +more free software. + +Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License, +but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary GNU GPL is +Readline, which implements command-line editing. I once found out about +a nonfree program which was designed to use Readline, and told the +developer this was not allowed. He could have taken command-line editing +out of the program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the +GPL. Now it is free software. + +The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash, or +Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or +universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to +the community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, +“Hold on there—your code belongs to us! We don’t want to share it; we +have decided to turn your improved version into a proprietary software +product.” + +Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss that +this proprietary software product would be copyright infringement, and +the boss realizes that he has only two choices: release the new code as +free software, or not at all. Almost always he lets the programmer do as +he intended all along, and the code goes into the next release. + +The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says no to some of the things that +people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad +thing—that the GPL “excludes” some proprietary software developers who +“need to be brought into the free software community.” + +But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not +to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to +stay out of our community. Being in our community means joining in +cooperation with us; we cannot “bring them into our community” if they +don’t want to join. + +What we *can* do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is +designed to make an inducement from our existing software: “If you will +make your software free, you can use this code.” Of course, it won’t win +’em all, but it wins some of the time. + +Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, +but its developers often want handouts from us. Free software users can +offer free software developers strokes for the ego—recognition and +gratitude—but it can be very tempting when a business tells you, “Just +let us put your package in our proprietary program, and your program +will be used by many thousands of people!” The temptation can be +powerful, but in the long run we are all better off if we resist it. + +The temptation and pressure are harder to recognize when they come +indirectly, through free software organizations that have adopted a +policy of catering to proprietary software. The X Consortium (and its +successor, the Open Group) offers an example: funded by companies that +made proprietary software, they strived for a decade to persuade +programmers not to use copyleft. When the Open Group tried to make +X11R6.4 nonfree software,[(2)](#FOOT2) those of us who had resisted that +pressure were glad that we did. + +In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with +nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and +rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that was +used for X11R6.3. Thank you, Open Group—but this subsequent reversal +does not invalidate the conclusions we draw from the fact that adding +the restrictions was *possible.* + +Pragmatically speaking, thinking about greater long-term goals will +strengthen your will to resist this pressure. If you focus your mind on +the freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you will +find the strength to do it. “Stand for something, or you will fall for +anything.” + +And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community…if “hard-nosed +realists” say that profit is the only ideal…just ignore them, and use +copyleft all the same. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Why Copyleft?” (@pageref{Why Copyleft}). @end +raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright For more on this, see “The X Window System Trap” +(@pageref{X}). @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/preface-v3.md b/docs/preface-v3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4a7b95b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/preface-v3.md @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +Preface {#preface .unnumbered} +======= + +The third edition of Free Software, Free Society holds updated versions +of most of the essays from the second edition, as well as many new +essays. A third of the essays are new. + +As it was in previous editions, the initial section of the book is +devoted to the principles and philosophy of free software. It includes a +more powerful presentation of why software ought to be free, an +explanation of how our principles determine our practical decisions, and +addresses the question of freedom and hardware designs. + +The way we name and frame an issue affects how we think about it. +Companies choose terminology to promote their framing; to accept that is +to support them. Thus, this edition has new material about how we at the +FSF name things and why. + +The copyright section now presents a transcript of a speech that +discusses the overall issue of copyright law and how it should be +changed. + +The patents section proposes a solution for the problem caused by +patents in the computing field. I’ve kept essays about patents separate +from those about copyright, since the two issues should not be lumped +together. + +The licensing section is largely unchanged, still presenting the GNU +licenses, with an introduction written with Brett Smith giving their +history and the motives for each of them, and an essay explaining why +software projects should upgrade to version 3 of the GNU General Public +License. + +This edition continues to address dangers and traps that the free +software community faces, including now the issues of nonfree games, +e-books, and the growing threat of digital surveillance. + +I hope this book can show you how you might lose your freedom, teach you +how to protect it, and inspire you to value it. + +Thank you to Jeanne Rasata for managing the project, editing the book, +formatting the text, and creating the index. Thanks also to Karl Berry +for technical assistance with Texinfo, and Kyle Winfree for designing +and formatting the cover. + +RICHARD STALLMAN + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ 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/).\ diff --git a/docs/push-copyright-aside.md b/docs/push-copyright-aside.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8ae6039 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/push-copyright-aside.md @@ -0,0 +1,152 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Science Must Push Copyright Aside {#science-must-push-copyright-aside .chapter} +==================================== + +> Many points that lead to a conclusion that software freedom must be +> universal often apply to other forms of expressive works, albeit in +> different ways. This essay concerns the application of principles +> related to software freedom to the area of literature. Generally, such +> issues are orthogonal to software freedom, but we include essays like +> this here since many people interested in Free Software want to know +> more about how the principles can be applied to areas other than +> software. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2001, 2012 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was first published in Nature magazine’s Web Debates forum, +on 8 June 2001. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} It should be a +truism that the scientific literature exists to disseminate scientific +knowledge, and that scientific journals exist to facilitate the process. +It therefore follows that rules for use of the scientific literature +should be designed to help achieve that goal. + +The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the age +of the printing press, an inherently centralized method of +mass-production copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal +articles restricted only journal publishers—requiring them to obtain +permission to publish an article—and would-be plagiarists. It helped +journals to operate and disseminate knowledge, without interfering with +the useful work of scientists or students, either as writers or readers +of articles. These rules fit that system well. + +The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the World +Wide Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum dissemination of +scientific articles, and knowledge, on the web? Articles should be +distributed in nonproprietary formats, with open access for all. And +everyone should have the right to “mirror” articles—that is, to +republish them verbatim with proper attribution. + +These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when they +are distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need to +change the present copyright system as it applies to paper publication +of journals because the problem is not in that domain. + +Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms that +began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe that the +purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish journals +so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and students. Such +thinking is known as “confusion of the means with the ends.” + +Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the scientific +literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use copyright law, +which is still in force despite its inappropriateness for computer +networks, as an excuse to stop scientists from choosing new rules. + +For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity’s future, we must +reject that approach at its root—not merely the obstructive systems that +have been instituted, but the mistaken priorities that inspired them. + +Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires expensive +high-powered server machines, and that they must charge access fees to +pay for these servers. This “problem” is a consequence of its own +“solution.” Give everyone the freedom to mirror, and libraries around +the world will set up mirror sites to meet the demand. This +decentralized solution will reduce network bandwidth needs and provide +faster access, all the while protecting the scholarly record against +accidental loss. + +Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for +access. Let us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this +tail need not wag the dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is +between 1 percent and 3 percent of the cost of funding the research to +produce it. Such a small percentage of the cost can hardly justify +obstructing the use of the results. + +Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example, through +page charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the research +sponsors. The sponsors should not mind, given that they currently pay +for publication in a more cumbersome way, through overhead fees for the +university library’s subscription to the journal. By changing the +economic model to charge editing costs to the research sponsors, we can +eliminate the apparent need to restrict access. The occasional author +who is not affiliated with an institution or company, and who has no +research sponsor, could be exempted from page charges, with costs levied +on institution-based authors. + +Another justification for access fees to online publications is to fund +conversion of the print archives of a journal into online form. That +work needs to be done, but we should seek alternative ways of funding it +that do not involve obstructing access to the result. The work itself +will not be any more difficult, or cost any more. It is self-defeating +to digitize the archives and waste the results by restricting access. + +The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote the Progress +of Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of science, science +must push copyright out of the way. + +### Later Developments {#later-developments .subheading} + +Some universities—MIT for instance[(1)](#FOOT1)—have adopted policies to +thwart the journal publishers’ power. Stronger policies are needed, +however, as ones like MIT’s permit individual authors to “opt out” +(i.e., cave in). + +The US government has imposed a requirement known as “public access” on +some funded research. This requires publication within a certain period +in a site that allows anyone to view the article. This requirement is a +positive step, but inadequate because it does not include freedom to +redistribute the article. + +Curiously, the concept of “open access” in the 2002 Budapest Open Access +Initiative did include freedom to redistribute. I signed that +declaration, despite my distaste for the word “open,” because the +substance of the position was right. + +However, the word “open” had the last laugh: influential campaigners for +“open access” subsequently dropped freedom to redistribute from their +goals. I stand by the position of the BOAI,[(2)](#FOOT2) but now that +“open access” means something else, I refer to it as “redistributable +publication” or “free-to-mirror publication.” + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright “MIT Faculty Open Access Policy,” adopted by unanimous +faculty vote on 18 March 2009, +[http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/\ +open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/](http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/%3Cbr%3Eopen-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/). +@end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/> for the +BOAI guidelines. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/right-to-read.md b/docs/right-to-read.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0bfa8d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/right-to-read.md @@ -0,0 +1,339 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The Right to Read {#the-right-to-read .chapter} +==================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014 +Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was written in 1996 and was published as “The Right to +Read: A Dystopian Short Story” in Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, n. +2, February 1997. This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} *From <span +class="roman">The Road to Tycho,</span> a collection of articles about +the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in +2096.*\ + For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz +asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could +borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she +dared ask, except Dan. + +This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his +computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could +go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, +the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught +since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something +that only pirates would do. + +And there wasn’t much chance that the SPA—the Software Protection +Authority—would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had +learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and +where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this +information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest +profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, +Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive +the harshest punishment—for not taking pains to prevent the crime. + +Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might +want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from +a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her +reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could +graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to +pay for all the research papers he read. (Ten percent of those fees went +to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic +career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently +referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.) + +Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the +library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to +pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without +government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and +nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By +2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were +a dim memory. + +There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. +They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank +Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to +skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told +too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for +a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In +2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a +debugger. + +Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have +debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or +downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to +bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had +become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were +illegal; the debuggers’ developers were sent to prison. + +Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger +vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially +licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class +was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for +class exercises. + +It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a +modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free +kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the +turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you +could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer’s +root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you +that. + +Dan concluded that he couldn’t simply lend Lissa his computer. But he +couldn’t refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak +with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for +help, that could mean she loved him too. + +Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he +lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa +read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It +was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about +it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him. + +Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own +password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless +of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference +with their means of monitoring students’ computer use was grounds for +disciplinary action. It didn’t matter whether you did anything +harmful—the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check +on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, +and they did not need to know what it was. + +Students were not usually expelled for this—not directly. Instead they +were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail +all their classes. + +Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only +in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using +computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to +student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not +those that merely raised suspicion. + +Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to +their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught +about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of +copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and +even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where +they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of +the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to +read soon became one of its central aims. + +### Author’s Notes {#authors-notes .subheading} + +- This story is supposedly a historical article that will be written + in the future by someone else, describing Dan Halbert’s youth under + a repressive society shaped by the enemies that use “pirate” + as propaganda. So it uses the terminology of that society. I have + tried to project it from today so as to sound even more oppressive. + See “Piracy,” on @pageref{Piracy}. +- The following note has been updated several times since the first + publication of the story.\ + The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may + take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, + most of the specific laws and practices described above have already + been proposed; many have been enacted into law in the US + and elsewhere. In the US, the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright + Act (DMCA) established the legal basis to restrict the reading and + lending of computerized books (and other works as well). The + European Union imposed similar restrictions in a 2001 + copyright directive. In France, under the DADVSI law adopted in + 2006, mere possession of a copy of DeCSS, the free program to + decrypt video on a DVD, is a crime. + + In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the + SSSCA that would require every new computer to have mandatory + copy-restriction facilities that the user cannot bypass. Following + the Clipper chip and similar US government key-escrow proposals, + this shows a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set + up to give absentees with clout control over the people actually + using the computer system. The SSSCA was later renamed to the + unpronounceable CBDTPA, which was glossed as the “Consume But Don’t + Try Programming Act.” + + The Republicans took control of the US Senate shortly thereafter. + They are less tied to Hollywood than the Democrats, so they did not + press these proposals. Now that the Democrats are back in control, + the danger is once again higher. + + In 2001 the US began attempting to use the proposed “Free Trade” + Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty to impose the same rules on all + the countries in the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the + so-called “free trade” treaties, which are actually designed to give + business increased power over democratic governments; imposing laws + like the DMCA is typical of this spirit. The FTAA was effectively + killed by Lula, President of Brazil, who rejected the DMCA + requirement and others. + + Since then, the US has imposed similar requirements on countries + such as Australia and Mexico through bilateral “free trade” + agreements, and on countries such as Costa Rica through another + treaty, CAFTA. Ecuador’s President Correa refused to sign a “free + trade” agreement with the US, but I’ve heard Ecuador had adopted + something like the DMCA in 2003. + + One of the ideas in the story was not proposed in reality + until 2002. This is the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep + the root passwords for your personal computers, and not let you + have them. + + The proponents of this scheme have given it names such as “trusted + computing” and “Palladium.” We call it “treacherous + computing”[(1)](#FOOT1) because the effect is to make your computer + obey companies even to the extent of disobeying and defying you. + This was implemented in 2007 as part of Windows Vista;[(2)](#FOOT2) + we expect Apple to do something similar. In this scheme, it is the + manufacturer that keeps the secret code, but the FBI would have + little trouble getting it. + + What Microsoft keeps is not exactly a password in the traditional + sense; no person ever types it on a terminal. Rather, it is a + signature and encryption key that corresponds to a second key stored + in your computer. This enables Microsoft, and potentially any web + sites that cooperate with Microsoft, the ultimate control over what + the user can do on his own computer. + + Vista also gives Microsoft additional powers; for instance, + Microsoft can forcibly install upgrades, and it can order all + machines running Vista to refuse to run a certain device driver. The + main purpose of Vista’s many restrictions is to impose DRM (Digital + Restrictions Management) that users can’t overcome. The threat of + DRM is why we have established the Defective by Design campaign, at + [DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). + + When this story was first written, the SPA was threatening small + Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor + all users. Most ISPs surrendered when threatened, because they + cannot afford to fight back in court. One ISP, Community ConneXion + in Oakland, California, refused the demand and was actually sued. + The SPA later dropped the suit, but obtained the DMCA, which gave + them the power they sought. The SPA, which actually stands for + Software Publishers Association, has been replaced in its + police-like role by the Business Software Alliance. The BSA is not, + today, an official police force; unofficially, it acts like one. + Using methods reminiscent of the erstwhile Soviet Union, it invites + people to inform on their coworkers and friends. A BSA terror + campaign in Argentina in 2001 made slightly veiled threats that + people sharing software would be raped. + + The university security policies described above are not imaginary. + For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university displayed + this message upon login: + + > This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals + > using this computer system without authority or in the excess of + > their authority are subject to having all their activities on this + > system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course + > of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the + > course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user + > may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents + > to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals + > possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University + > regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such + > monitoring to University authorities and/or law + > enforcement officials. + + This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure + most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it. + +### Bad News {#bad-news .subheading} + +The battle for the right to read is already in progress. The enemy is is +organized, while we are not, so it is going against us. Examples of bad +things that have happened since the original publication of this article +include: + +- Today’s commercial e-books abolish readers’ traditional freedoms. + See “The Danger of E-Books” (@pageref{E-Books Danger}) for more + on this. +- The publication of a “biology textbook” web site[(3)](#FOOT3) that + you can access only by signing a contract not to lend it to anyone + else,[(4)](#FOOT4) which the publisher can revoke at will. +- Electronic publishing’s curtailment of user freedom.[(5)](#FOOT5) +- Books inside computers:[(6)](#FOOT6) software to control who can + read books and documents on a computer. + +If we want to stop the bad news and create some good news, we need to +organize and fight. The FSF’s Defective by Design campaign has made a +start; subscribe to the campaign’s mailing list to lend a hand. And join +the FSF, at <http://my.fsf.org/join>, to help fund our work. + +### References {#references .subheading} + +- @raggedright +- United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property + \[*sic*\] and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of + the Working Group on Intellectual Property \[*sic*\] Rights, + Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. (See “Did You Say ‘Intellectual + Property’? It’s a Seductive Mirage” (@pageref{Not IPR}) for why the + term “Intellectual Property” is incoherent and should never + be used.) +- Samuelson, Pamela, “The Copyright Grab,” *Wired,* January 1996, + 4.01, <http://wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/white.paper_pr.html>. +- Boyle, James, “Sold Out,” *New York Times,* 31 March 1996, sec. + 4, p. 15; also available at + <https://law.duke.edu/boylesite/sold_out.htm>. +- Editorial, *Washington Post,* “Public Data or Private Data,” + 3 November 1996, sec. C, p. 6, [http://web.archive.org/web/\ + 20130508120533/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199611/msg00012.html](http://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20130508120533/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199611/msg00012.html). +- Union for the Public Domain—an organization which aims to resist and + reverse the overextension of copyright and patent powers. @end + raggedright + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “Can You Trust Your Computer?” (@pageref{Can You +Trust}) for more on “trusted computing.” @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See <http://badvista.fsf.org/> for our campaigns against +Windows Vista. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright Nature America Inc., “Announcing Principles of Biology, an +Interactive Textbook by Nature Education,” +<http://nature.com/nature_education/biology.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright Nature America Inc., “Principles of Science Privacy +Notice,” accessed August 2015, +<http://nature.com/principles/viewTermsOfUse>. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See Don Clark’s article “Seybold Opens Chapter on Digital +Books” (31 August 1999, +[http://www.zdnet.com/article/seybold-opens-chapter-on-\ +digital-books/](http://www.zdnet.com/article/seybold-opens-chapter-on-%3Cbr%3Edigital-books/)), +about distribution of books in electronic form and copyright issues +affecting the right to read a copy. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright “Microsoft Announces New Software for Reading on Screen,” +30 August 1999, +<http://microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/1999/Aug99/SeyboldPR.aspx>. @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md b/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..af72c4f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/rms-why-gplv3.md @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Upgrade to GPLv3 {#why-upgrade-to-gplv3 .chapter} +======================= + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2007, 2009 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2007. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Version 3 of the GNU General Public +License (GNU GPL) has been released, enabling free software packages to +upgrade from GPL version 2. This article explains why upgrading the +license is important. + +First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL +version 2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if +some programs remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These +two licenses are incompatible, but that isn’t a fundamental problem. + +When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no +legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single +program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: +each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger +program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no +way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause +to GPLv3, but it wouldn’t do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar +clause. + +Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link, +merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. +There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs +side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and +the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn’t stop us +from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. +This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and +GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no +conflict. + +Keeping a program under GPLv2 won’t create problems. The reason to +migrate is because of the existing problems that GPLv3 will address. + +One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means +certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered +software that you can’t effectively change, because the appliance shuts +down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization +is that the software has features the manufacturer knows people will +want to change, and aims to stop people from changing them. The +manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free +software provides, but they don’t let you do likewise. + +Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should +suffice to keep nasty features to a low level. Perhaps competition alone +would avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut down +between 1pm and 5pm every Tuesday,” but even so, a choice of masters +isn’t freedom. Freedom means *you* control what your software does, not +merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you. + +In the crucial area of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—nasty +features designed to restrict your use of the data in your +computer—competition is no help, because relevant competition is +forbidden. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws, +it is illegal, in the US and many other countries, to distribute DVD +players unless they restrict the user according to the official rules of +the DVD conspiracy (its web site is <http://www.dvdcca.org/>, but the +rules do not seem to be published there). The public can’t reject DRM by +buying non-DRM players because none are available. No matter how many +products you can choose from, they all have equivalent digital +handcuffs. + +GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn’t forbid +DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive +functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it +makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the +distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they +deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids +tivoization. + +The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers is +to be expected, even occasionally. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for +products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and +organizations. + +Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the +Novell-Microsoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents +to make users pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and +made this pact to try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited +protection from Microsoft patents to Novell’s customers. + +Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is +designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited patent +protection to the whole community. In order to take advantage of this +protection, programs need to use GPLv3. + +Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to +avoid those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don’t get a “next time.” +Releasing a program under GPL version 3 protects it from Microsoft’s +future attempts to make redistributors collect Microsoft royalties from +the program’s users. + +GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the +program’s contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an +implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided +them a copy won’t sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, +for patent infringement. + +The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might have +liked. Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes GPL-covered +code give up all software patents, along with everyone who does not +redistribute GPL-covered code, because there should be no software +patents. Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all +software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have never +heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field. Large +programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if +they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations +collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller +developers. Patents already obstruct free software development. + +The only way to make software development safe is to abolish software +patents, and we aim to achieve this some day. But we cannot do this +through a software license. Any program, free or not, can be killed by a +software patent in the hands of an unrelated party, and the program’s +license cannot prevent that. Only court decisions or changes in patent +law can make software development safe from patents. If we tried to do +this with GPLv3, it would fail. + +Therefore, GPLv3 seeks to limit and channel the danger. In particular, +we have tried to save free software from a fate worse than death: to be +made effectively proprietary, through patents. The explicit patent +license of GPLv3 makes sure companies that use the GPL to give users the +four freedoms cannot turn around and use their patents to tell some +users, “That doesn’t include you.” It also stops them from colluding +with other patent holders to do this. + +Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler +termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache +license. All in all, plenty of reason to upgrade. + +Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to +users’ freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is +important to make sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to +GPLv4 if and when we write one. + +One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any +later version.” Another way is for all the contributors to a program to +state a proxy who can decide on upgrading to future GPL versions. The +third way is for all the contributors to assign copyright to one +designated copyright holder, who will be in a position to upgrade the +license version. One way or another, programs should provide this +flexibility for future GPL versions. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/selling-exceptions.md b/docs/selling-exceptions.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b55eef2 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/selling-exceptions.md @@ -0,0 +1,162 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL {#on-selling-exceptions-to-the-gnu-gpl .chapter} +======================================= + +> The practice of selling license exceptions became a hot topic when I +> co-signed Knowledge Ecology International’s letter warning that +> Oracle’s purchase of MySQL (plus the rest of Sun) might not be good +> for MySQL. +> +> As the following article explains, my feelings about selling license +> exceptions are mixed. Clearly it is possible to develop powerful and +> complex software packages under the GNU GPL without selling +> exceptions, and we do this. MySQL can be developed this way too. +> However, selling exceptions has been used by MySQL developers. Who +> should decide whether to continue this? I don’t think it is wise to +> give major decisions about a free software project to a large +> proprietary competitor, which might naturally prefer that the project +> develop less rather than more. +> +> One thing that makes no sense at all is the idea of changing the +> license of MySQL to something noncopyleft. That would eliminate the +> possibility of selling exceptions, but allow all sorts of proprietary +> modified versions. Wherever MySQL should go, it isn’t there. + +When I co-signed the letter objecting to Oracle’s planned purchase of +MySQL[(1)](#FOOT1) (along with the rest of Sun), some free software +supporters were surprised that I approved of the practice of selling +license exceptions which the MySQL developers have used. They expected +me to condemn the practice outright. This article explains what I think +of the practice, and why. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2009, 2010 +Richard Stallman\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code releases +it to the public under a free software license, then lets customers pay +for permission to use the same code under different terms, for instance +allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications. + +We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something +crucially different: purely proprietary extensions or versions of a free +program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one +company, are different issues. In selling exceptions, the same code that +the exception applies to is available to the general public as free +software. An extension or a modified version that is only available +under a proprietary license is proprietary software, pure and simple, +and no better than any other proprietary software. This article is +concerned with cases that involve strictly and only the sale of +exceptions. + +I’ve considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on +occasion I’ve suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has +made it possible for important programs to become free software. + +The KDE desktop was developed in the 90s based on the Qt library. Qt was +proprietary software, and TrollTech charged for permission to embed it +in proprietary applications. TrollTech allowed gratis use of Qt in free +applications, but this did not make it free/libre software. Completely +free operating systems therefore could not include Qt, so they could not +use KDE either. + +In 1998, the management of TrollTech recognized that they could make Qt +free software and continue charging for permission to embed it in +proprietary software. I do not recall whether the suggestion came from +me, but I certainly was happy to see the change, which made it possible +to use Qt and thus KDE in the free software world. + +Initially, they used their own license, the Q Public License (QPL)—quite +restrictive as free software licenses go, and incompatible with the GNU +GPL. Later they switched to the GNU GPL; I think I had explained to them +that it would work for the purpose. + +Selling exceptions depends fundamentally on using a copyleft license, +such as the GNU GPL, for the free software release. A copyleft license +permits embedding in a larger program only if the whole combined program +is released under that license; this is how it ensures extended versions +will also be free. Thus, users that want to make the combined program +proprietary need special permission. Only the copyright holder can grant +that, and selling exceptions is one style of doing so. Someone else, who +received the code under the GNU GPL or another copyleft license, cannot +grant an exception. + +When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself +whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a +program in a larger proprietary program, he’s doing something wrong +(namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer +that sold the exception is doing something wrong too? + +If that implication is valid, it would also apply to releasing the same +program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the X11 +license. That also permits such embedding. So either we have to conclude +that it’s wrong to release anything under the X11 license—a conclusion I +find unacceptably extreme—or reject this implication. Using a +noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it’s +not wrong. + +In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code +in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further, +permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in +proprietary software. If this doesn’t make the X11 license unacceptable, +it doesn’t make selling exceptions unacceptable. + +There are three reasons why the FSF doesn’t practice selling exceptions. +One is that it doesn’t lead to the FSF’s goal: assuring freedom for each +user of our software. That’s what we wrote the GNU GPL for, and the way +to achieve this most thoroughly is to release under GPL version +3-or-later and not allow embedding in proprietary software. Selling +exceptions wouldn’t achieve this, just as release under the X11 license +wouldn’t. So normally we don’t do either of those things. We release +under the GPL only. + +Another reason we release only under the GPL is so as not to permit +proprietary extensions that would present practical advantages over our +free programs. Users for whom freedom is not a value might choose those +nonfree versions rather than the free programs they are based on—and +lose their freedom. We don’t want to encourage that. + +But there are occasional cases where, for specific reasons of strategy, +we decide that using a more permissive license on a certain program is +better for the cause of freedom. In those cases, we release the program +to everyone under that permissive license. + +This is because of another ethical principle that the FSF follows: to +treat all users the same. An idealistic campaign for freedom should not +discriminate, so the FSF is committed to giving the same license to all +users. The FSF never sells exceptions; whatever license or licenses we +release a program under, that is available to everyone. + +But we need not insist that companies follow that principle. I consider +selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will +suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright James Love and Malini Aisola (Knowledge Ecology +International), Richard Stallman (FSF), Jim Killock (Open Rights Group), +letter to Neelie Kroes (Commissioner for Competition, European +Commission), 19 October 2009, +<http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf>. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/selling.md b/docs/selling.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0c9ba1c --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/selling.md @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Selling Free Software {#selling-free-software .chapter} +======================== + +Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you +should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you +should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This +is a misunderstanding. + +Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free +software[(1)](#FOOT1) to charge as much as they wish or can. If a +license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a +nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. + +The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either +to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we’re talking +about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) +Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change +the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes. + +Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a +substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from +different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because +users have freedom in using it. + +Nonfree programs[(2)](#FOOT2) are usually sold for a high price, but +sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn’t make +it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is nonfree +because its users are denied freedom. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip For some views on the +ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such as the GNU +GPL, see @pageref{Exceptions}. @medskip @footnoterule @smallskip +Copyright © 1996–1998, 2001, 2007, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn’t make +the software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing +copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and +*make some money.* Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate +activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. + +Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it +ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a +distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to free +software development projects or to the Free Software Foundation. This +way you can advance the world of free software. + +**Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for +development. Don’t waste it!** + +In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge +too low a fee, you won’t have anything to spare to support development. + +### Will a Higher Distribution Price Hurt Some Users? {#will-a-higher-distribution-price-hurt-some-users .subheading} + +People sometimes worry that a high distribution fee will put free +software out of range for users who don’t have a lot of money. With +proprietary software, a high price does exactly that—but free software +is different. + +The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, +and there are many ways to get it. + +Software hoarders try their damnedest to stop you from running a +proprietary program without paying the standard price. If this price is +high, that does make it hard for some users to use the program. + +With free software, users don’t *have* to pay the distribution fee in +order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who +has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or +several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then +each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a +major obstacle when the software is free. + +### Will a Higher Distribution Price Discourage Use of Free Software? {#will-a-higher-distribution-price-discourage-use-of-free-software .subheading} + +Another common concern is for the popularity of free software. People +think that a high price for distribution would reduce the number of +users, or that a low price is likely to encourage users. + +This is true for proprietary software—but free software is different. +With so many ways to get copies, the price of distribution service has +less effect on popularity. + +In the long run, how many people use free software is determined mainly +by *how much free software can do,* and how easy it is to use. Many +users do not make freedom their priority; they may continue to use +proprietary software if free software can’t do all the jobs they want +done. Thus, if we want to increase the number of users in the long run, +we should above all *develop more free software.* + +The most direct way to do this is by writing needed free +software[(3)](#FOOT3) or manuals[(4)](#FOOT4) yourself. But if you do +distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by +raising funds for others to write them. + +### The Term “Selling Software” Can Be Confusing Too {#the-term-selling-software-can-be-confusing-too .subheading} + +Strictly speaking, “selling” means trading goods for money. Selling a +copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it. + +However, when people think of “selling software,”[(5)](#FOOT5) they +usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the +software proprietary rather than free. + +So unless you’re going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this +article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term “selling +software” and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could +say “distributing free software for a fee”—that is unambiguous. + +### High or Low Fees, and the GNU GPL {#high-or-low-fees-and-the-gnu-gpl .subheading} + +Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU +GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing +a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a +billion dollars. It’s up to you, and the marketplace, so don’t complain +to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a copy. + +The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without +the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required +by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a +limit on the fee[(6)](#FOOT6) for the source code, they would be able +set a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus +pretend to release source code while in truth concealing it. So in this +case we have to limit the fee for source in order to ensure the user’s +freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification +for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them. + +Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU +GPL plead for permission, saying that they “won’t charge money for the +GNU software” or such like. That won’t get them anywhere with us. Free +software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. +When we defend users’ freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such +as how much of a distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the +whole issue, and the only issue. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright Also known as “proprietary software.” See @pageref{Category +Proprietary Software} for more on this category of software. @end +raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See the Savannah Task List, at +<http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist>. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/doc/doc.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Sell Software} for more on how the expression +“sell software” is ambiguous. @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See section 6 of the GNU GPL (@pageref{GPL S6}). @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/social-inertia.md b/docs/social-inertia.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc8c06e --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/social-inertia.md @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Overcoming Social Inertia {#overcoming-social-inertia .chapter} +============================ + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 2007, 2009 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2007. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Almost two decades have passed since +the combination of GNU and Linux first made it possible to use a PC in +freedom. We have come a long way since then. Now you can even buy a +laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled from more than one hardware +vendor—although the systems they ship are not entirely free software. So +what holds us back from total success? + +The main obstacle to the triumph of software freedom is social inertia. +It exists in many forms, and you have surely seen some of them. Examples +include devices that only work on Windows and commercial web sites +accessible only with Windows. If you value short-term convenience +instead of freedom, you might consider these reason enough to use +Windows. Most companies currently run Windows, so students who think +short-term want to learn how to use it and ask their schools to teach +it. Schools teach Windows, produce graduates that are used to using +Windows, and this encourages businesses to use Windows. + +Microsoft actively nurtures this inertia: it encourages schools to +inculcate dependency on Windows, and contracts to set up web sites that +then turn out to work only with Internet Explorer. + +A few years ago, Microsoft ads argued that Windows was cheaper to run +than GNU/Linux. Their comparisons were debunked, but it is worth noting +the deeper flaw in their argument, the implicit premise which cites a +form of social inertia: “Currently, more technical people know Windows +than GNU/Linux.” People who value their freedom would not give it up to +save money, but many business executives believe ideologically that +everything they possess, even their freedom, should be for sale. + +Social inertia consists of people who have given in to social inertia. +When you surrender to social inertia, you become part of the pressure it +exerts on others; when you resist it, you reduce it. We conquer social +inertia by identifying it, and resolving not to be part of it. + +Here a weakness holds our community back: most GNU/Linux users have +never even heard the ideas of freedom that motivated the development of +GNU, so they still judge matters based on short-term convenience rather +than on their freedom. This makes them vulnerable to being led by the +nose by social inertia, so that they become part of the inertia. + +To build our community’s strength to resist, we need to talk about free +software and freedom—not merely about the practical benefits that open +source supporters cite. As more people recognize what they need to do to +overcome the inertia, we will make more progress. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/software-literary-patents.md b/docs/software-literary-patents.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a021f40 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/software-literary-patents.md @@ -0,0 +1,169 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Software Patents and Literary Patents {#software-patents-and-literary-patents .chapter} +======================================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{ Copyright © 2005, 2007, 2008 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://guardian.co.uk>, on +23 June 2005. It was then titled “Patent Absurdity” and focused on the +proposed European software patent directive. This version is part of +@fsfsthreecite} When politicians consider the question of software +patents, they are usually voting blind; not being programmers, they +don’t understand what software patents really do. They often think +patents are similar to copyright law (“except for some details”)—which +is not the case. For instance, when I publicly asked Patrick Devedjian, +then Minister for Industry in France, how France would vote on the issue +of software patents, Devedjian responded with an impassioned defense of +copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his role in the adoption of +copyright. (The misleading term “intellectual property” promotes this +confusion—one of the reasons it should never be used.) + +Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the +disastrous effects of software patents. We can use Victor Hugo as an +example to illustrate the difference. + +A novel and a modern complex program have certain points in common: each +one is large, and implements many ideas in combination. So let’s follow +the analogy, and suppose that patent law had been applied to novels in +the 1800s; suppose that states such as France had permitted the +patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected Victor Hugo’s +writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare with the +effects of literary copyright? + +Consider Victor Hugo’s novel Les Misérables. Since he wrote it, the +copyright belonged only to him. He did not have to fear that some +stranger could sue him for copyright infringement and win. That was +impossible, because copyright covers only the details of a work of +authorship, not the ideas embodied in them, and it only restricts +copying. Hugo had not copied Les Misérables, so he was not in danger +from copyright. + +Patents work differently. Patents cover ideas; each patent is a monopoly +on practicing some idea, which is described in the patent itself. Here’s +one example of a hypothetical literary patent: + +- Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a + reader the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long + time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind. +- Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said + character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness + of another. +- Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, + wherein said character changes his name during the story. + +If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Misérables was published, +the novel would have conflicted with all three claims, since all these +things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Victor Hugo could have +been sued, and if sued, he would have lost. The novel could have been +prohibited—in effect, censored—by the patent holder. + +Now consider this hypothetical literary patent: + +- Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a + reader the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long + time and subsequently changes his name. + +Les Misérables would have been prohibited by that patent too, because +this description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean. And here’s +another hypothetical patent: + +- Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a + reader the concept of a character who finds moral redemption and + then changes his name. + +Jean Valjean would have been forbidden by this patent too. + +All three patents would cover, and prohibit, the life story of this one +character. They overlap, but they do not precisely duplicate each other, +so they could all be valid simultaneously; all three patent holders +could have sued Victor Hugo. Any one of them could have prohibited +publication of Les Misérables. + +This patent also could have been violated: + +- Claim 1: a communication process that presents a character whose + given name matches the last syllable of his family name. + +through the name “Jean Valjean,” but at least this patent would have +been easy to avoid. + +You might think that these ideas are so simple that no patent office +would have issued them. We programmers are often amazed by the +simplicity of the ideas that real software patents cover—for instance, +the European Patent Office has issued a patent on the progress bar, and +a patent on accepting payment via credit cards. These patents would be +laughable if they were not so dangerous. + +Other aspects of Les Misérables could also have run afoul of patents. +For instance, there could have been a patent on a fictionalized +portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo, or a patent on using Parisian slang +in fiction. Two more lawsuits. In fact, there is no limit to the number +of different patents that might have been applicable for suing the +author of a work such as Les Misérables. All the patent holders would +say they deserved a reward for the literary progress that their patented +ideas represent, but these obstacles would not promote progress in +literature, they would only obstruct it. + +However, a very broad patent could have made all these issues +irrelevant. Imagine a patent with broad claims like these: + +- A communication process structured with narration that continues + through many pages. +- A narration structure sometimes resembling a fugue or improvisation. +- Intrigue articulated around the confrontation of specific + characters, each in turn setting traps for the others. +- Narration that presents many layers of society. +- Narration that shows the wheels of hidden conspiracy. + +Who would the patent holders have been? They could have been other +novelists, perhaps Dumas or Balzac, who had written such novels—but not +necessarily. It isn’t required to write a program to patent a software +idea, so if our hypothetical literary patents follow the real patent +system, these patent holders would not have had to write novels, or +stories, or anything—except patent applications. Patent parasite +companies, businesses that produce nothing except threats and lawsuits, +are booming nowadays. + +Given these broad patents, Victor Hugo would not have reached the point +of asking what patents might get him sued for using the character of +Jean Valjean, because he could not even have considered writing a novel +of this kind. + +This analogy can help nonprogrammers see what software patents do. +Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in a +word processor, or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet. Patents +cover algorithms that programs need to use. Patents cover aspects of +file formats, such as Microsoft’s OOXML format. MPEG 2 video format is +covered by 39 different US patents. + +Just as one novel could run afoul of many different literary patents at +once, one program can be prohibited by many different patents at once. +It is so much work to identify all the patents that appear to apply to a +large program that only one such study has been done. A 2004 study of +Linux, the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, found 283 different +US software patents that seemed to cover it. That is to say, each of +these 283 different patents forbids some computational process found +somewhere in the thousands of pages of source code of Linux. At the +time, Linux was around 1 percent of the whole GNU/Linux system. How many +patents might there be that a distributor of the whole system could be +sued under? + +The way to prevent software patents from bollixing software development +is simple: don’t authorize them. This ought to be easy, since most +patent laws have provisions against software patents. They typically say +that “software per se” cannot be patented. But patent offices around the +world are trying to twist the words and issuing patents on the ideas +implemented in programs. Unless this is blocked, the result will be to +put all software developers in danger. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/song-book-jutta-scrunch-crop.pdf b/docs/song-book-jutta-scrunch-crop.pdf Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3ce8836 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/song-book-jutta-scrunch-crop.pdf diff --git a/docs/surveillance-vs-democracy.md b/docs/surveillance-vs-democracy.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bff9e5b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/surveillance-vs-democracy.md @@ -0,0 +1,709 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand? {#how-much-surveillance-can-democracy-withstand .chapter} +================================================= + +Thanks to Edward Snowden’s disclosures, we know that the current level +of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human rights. +The repeated harassment and prosecution of dissidents, sources, and +journalists in the US and elsewhere provides confirmation. We need to +reduce the level of general surveillance, but how far? Where exactly is +the *maximum tolerable level of surveillance,* which we must ensure is +not exceeded? It is the level beyond which surveillance starts to +interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers +(such as Snowden) are likely to be caught. + +Faced with government secrecy, we the people depend on whistleblowers to +tell us what the state is doing.[(1)](#FOOT1) However, today’s +surveillance intimidates potential whistleblowers, which means it is too +much. To recover our democratic control over the state, we must reduce +surveillance to the point where whistleblowers know they are safe. + +Using free/libre software, as I’ve advocated for 30 years, is the first +step in taking control of our digital lives, and that includes +preventing surveillance. We can’t trust nonfree software; the NSA +uses[(2)](#FOOT2) and even creates[(3)](#FOOT3) security weaknesses in +nonfree software to invade our own computers and routers. Free software +gives us control of our own computers, but that won’t protect our +privacy once we set foot on the internet.[(4)](#FOOT4) +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2015 Richard +Stallman\ + {A version of this article was first published on the [Wired](Wired) +web site under the same title (Wired, 14 October 2013, +<http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/10/a-necessary-evil-what-it-takes-for-democracy-to-survive-surveillance>). +This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Bipartisan legislation to “curtail the domestic surveillance +powers”[(5)](#FOOT5) in the US is being drawn up, but it relies on +limiting the government’s use of our virtual dossiers. That won’t +suffice to protect whistleblowers if “catching the whistleblower” is +grounds for access sufficient to identify him or her. We need to go +further. + +### The Upper Limit on Surveillance in a Democracy {#the-upper-limit-on-surveillance-in-a-democracy .subheading} + +If whistleblowers don’t dare reveal crimes and lies, we lose the last +shred of effective control over our government and institutions. That’s +why surveillance that enables the state to find out who has talked with +a reporter is too much surveillance—too much for democracy to endure. + +An unnamed US government official ominously told journalists in 2011 +that the US would not subpoena reporters because “We know who you’re +talking to.”[(6)](#FOOT6) Sometimes journalists’ phone call records are +subpoenaed[(7)](#FOOT7) to find this out, but Snowden has shown us that +in effect they subpoena all the phone call records of everyone in the +US, all the time, from Verizon[(8)](#FOOT8) and from other companies +too.[(9)](#FOOT9)\ + Opposition and dissident activities need to keep secrets from states +that are willing to play dirty tricks on them. The ACLU has demonstrated +the US government’s systematic practice of infiltrating peaceful +dissident groups[(10)](#FOOT10) on the pretext that there might be +terrorists among them. The point at which surveillance is too much is +the point at which the state can find who spoke to a known journalist or +a known dissident. + +### Information, Once Collected, Will Be Misused {#information-once-collected-will-be-misused .subheading} + +When people recognize that the level of general surveillance is too +high, the first response is to propose limits on access to the +accumulated data. That sounds nice, but it won’t fix the problem, not +even slightly, even supposing that the government obeys the rules. (The +NSA has misled the FISA court, which said it was unable to effectively +hold the NSA accountable.)[(11)](#FOOT11) Suspicion of a crime will be +grounds for access, so once a whistleblower is accused of “espionage,” +finding the “spy” will provide an excuse to access the accumulated +material. + +In addition, the state’s surveillance staff will misuse the data for +personal reasons. Some NSA agents used US surveillance systems to track +their lovers—past, present, or wished-for—in a practice called +“LOVEINT.”[(12)](#FOOT12) The NSA says it has caught and punished this a +few times; we don’t know how many other times it wasn’t caught. But +these events shouldn’t surprise us, because police have long used their +access to driver’s license records to track down someone attractive, a +practice known as “running a plate for a date.”[(13)](#FOOT13) + +Surveillance data will always be used for other purposes, even if this +is prohibited. Once the data has been accumulated and the state has the +possibility of access to it, it can misuse that data in dreadful ways, +as shown by examples from Europe[(14)](#FOOT14) and the +US.[(15)](#FOOT15) + +Personal data collected by the state is also likely to be obtained by +outside crackers that break the security of the servers, even by +crackers working for hostile states.[(16)](#FOOT16) + +Governments can easily use massive surveillance capability to subvert +democracy directly.[(17)](#FOOT17) + +Total surveillance accessible to the state enables the state to launch a +massive fishing expedition against any person. To make journalism and +democracy safe, we must limit the accumulation of data that is easily +accessible to the state. + +### Robust Protection for Privacy Must Be Technical {#robust-protection-for-privacy-must-be-technical .subheading} + +The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other organizations propose a set +of legal principles designed to prevent the abuses of massive +surveillance.[(18)](#FOOT18) These principles include, crucially, +explicit legal protection for whistleblowers; as a consequence, they +would be adequate for protecting democratic freedoms—if adopted +completely and enforced without exception forever. + +However, such legal protections are precarious: as recent history shows, +they can be repealed (as in the FISA Amendments Act), suspended, or +ignored.[(19)](#FOOT19) + +Meanwhile, demagogues will cite the usual excuses as grounds for total +surveillance; any terrorist attack, even one that kills just a handful +of people, can be hyped to provide an opportunity. + +If limits on access to the data are set aside, it will be as if they had +never existed: years’ worth of dossiers would suddenly become available +for misuse by the state and its agents and, if collected by companies, +for their private misuse as well. If, however, we stop the collection of +dossiers on everyone, those dossiers won’t exist, and there will be no +way to compile them retroactively. A new illiberal regime would have to +implement surveillance afresh, and it would only collect data starting +at that date. As for suspending or momentarily ignoring this law, the +idea would hardly make sense. + +### First, Don’t Be Foolish {#first-dont-be-foolish .subheading} + +To have privacy, you must not throw it away: the first one who has to +protect your privacy is you. Avoid identifying yourself to web sites, +contact them with Tor, and use browsers that block the schemes they use +to track visitors. Use the GNU Privacy Guard to encrypt the contents of +your email. Pay for things with cash. + +Keep your own data; don’t store your data in a company’s “convenient” +server. It’s safe, however, to entrust a data backup to a commercial +service, provided you put the files in an archive and encrypt the whole +archive, including the names of the files, with free software on your +own computer before uploading it. + +For privacy’s sake, you must avoid nonfree software since, as a +consequence of giving others control of your computing, it is likely to +spy on you.[(20)](#FOOT20) Avoid service as a software +substitute;[(21)](#FOOT21) as well as giving others control of your +computing, it requires you to hand over all the pertinent data to the +server. + +Protect your friends’ and acquaintances’ privacy, too. Don’t give out +their personal information[(22)](#FOOT22) except how to contact them, +and never give any web site your list of email or phone contacts. Don’t +tell a company such as Facebook anything about your friends that they +might not wish to publish in a newspaper. Better yet, don’t be used by +Facebook at all. Reject communication systems that require users to give +their real names, even if you are going to give yours, since they +pressure other people to surrender their privacy. + +Self-protection is essential, but even the most rigorous self-protection +is insufficient to protect your privacy on or from systems that don’t +belong to you. When we communicate with others or move around the city, +our privacy depends on the practices of society. We can avoid some of +the systems that surveil our communications and movements, but not all +of them. Clearly, the better solution is to make all these systems stop +surveilling people other than legitimate suspects. + +### We Must Design Every System for Privacy {#we-must-design-every-system-for-privacy .subheading} + +If we don’t want a total surveillance society, we must consider +surveillance a kind of social pollution, and limit the surveillance +impact of each new digital system just as we limit the environmental +impact of physical construction. + +For example: “smart” meters for electricity are touted for sending the +power company moment-by-moment data about each customer’s electric +usage, including how usage compares with users in general. This is +implemented based on general surveillance, but does not require any +surveillance. It would be easy for the power company to calculate the +average usage in a residential neighborhood by dividing the total usage +by the number of subscribers, and send that to the meters. Each +customer’s meter could compare her usage, over any desired period of +time, with the average usage pattern for that period. The same benefit, +with no surveillance! + +We need to design such privacy into all our digital systems. + +### Remedy for Collecting Data: Leaving It Dispersed {#remedy-for-collecting-data-leaving-it-dispersed .subheading} + +One way to make monitoring safe for privacy is to keep the data +dispersed and inconvenient to access. Old-fashioned security cameras +were no threat to privacy.[(23)](#FOOT23) The recording was stored on +the premises, and kept for a few weeks at most. Because of the +inconvenience of accessing these recordings, it was never done +massively; they were accessed only in the places where someone reported +a crime. It would not be feasible to physically collect millions of +tapes every day and watch them or copy them. + +Nowadays, security cameras have become surveillance cameras: they are +connected to the internet so recordings can be collected in a data +center and saved forever. This is already dangerous, but it is going to +get worse. Advances in face recognition may bring the day when suspected +journalists can be tracked on the street all the time to see who they +talk with. + +Internet-connected cameras often have lousy digital security themselves, +so anyone could watch what the camera sees.[(24)](#FOOT24) To restore +privacy, we should ban the use of internet-connected cameras aimed where +and when the public is admitted, except when carried by people. Everyone +must be free to post photos and video recordings occasionally, but the +systematic accumulation of such data on the internet must be limited. + +### Remedy for Internet Commerce Surveillance {#remedy-for-internet-commerce-surveillance .subheading} + +Most data collection comes from people’s own digital activities. Usually +the data is collected first by companies. But when it comes to the +threat to privacy and democracy, it makes no difference whether +surveillance is done directly by the state or farmed out to a business, +because the data that the companies collect is systematically available +to the state. + +The NSA, through PRISM, has gotten into the databases of many large +internet corporations.[(25)](#FOOT25) AT&T has saved all its phone call +records since 1987 and makes them available to the DEA[(26)](#FOOT26) to +search on request. Strictly speaking, the US government does not possess +that data, but in practical terms it may as well possess it. + +The goal of making journalism and democracy safe therefore requires that +we reduce the data collected about people by any organization, not just +by the state. We must redesign digital systems so that they do not +accumulate data about their users. If they need digital data about our +transactions, they should not be allowed to keep them more than a short +time beyond what is inherently necessary for their dealings with us. + +One of the motives for the current level of surveillance of the internet +is that sites are financed through advertising based on tracking users’ +activities and propensities. This converts a mere annoyance—advertising +that we can learn to ignore—into a surveillance system that harms us +whether we know it or not. Purchases over the internet also track their +users. And we are all aware that “privacy policies” are more excuses to +violate privacy than commitments to uphold it. + +We could correct both problems by adopting a system of anonymous +payments—anonymous for the payer, that is. (We don’t want the payee to +dodge taxes.) Bitcoin is not anonymous,[(27)](#FOOT27) though there are +efforts to develop ways to pay anonymously with Bitcoin. However, +technology for digital cash was first developed in the +1980s;[(28)](#FOOT28)we need only suitable business arrangements, and +for the state not to obstruct them. + +A further threat from sites’ collection of personal data is that +security breakers might get in, take it, and misuse it. This includes +customers’ credit card details. An anonymous payment system would end +this danger: a security hole in the site can’t hurt you if the site +knows nothing about you. + +### Remedy for Travel Surveillance {#remedy-for-travel-surveillance .subheading} + +We must convert digital toll collection to anonymous payment (using +digital cash, for instance). License-plate recognition systems recognize +all license plates, and the data can be kept +indefinitely;[(29)](#FOOT29) they should be required by law to notice +and record only those license numbers that are on a list of cars sought +by court orders. A less secure alternative would record all cars locally +but only for a few days, and not make the full data available over the +internet; access to the data should be limited to searching for a list +of court-ordered license numbers. + +The US “no-fly” list must be abolished because it is punishment without +trial.[(30)](#FOOT30) + +It is acceptable to have a list of people whose person and luggage will +be searched with extra care, and anonymous passengers on domestic +flights could be treated as if they were on this list. It is also +acceptable to bar non-citizens, if they are not permitted to enter the +country at all, from boarding flights to the country. This ought to be +enough for all legitimate purposes. + +Many mass transit systems use some kind of smart cards or RFIDs for +payment. These systems accumulate personal data: if you once make the +mistake of paying with anything but cash, they associate the card +permanently with your name. Furthermore, they record all travel +associated with each card. Together they amount to massive surveillance. +This data collection must be reduced. + +Navigation services do surveillance: the user’s computer tells the map +service the user’s location and where the user wants to go; then the +server determines the route and sends it back to the user’s computer, +which displays it. Nowadays, the server probably records the user’s +locations, since there is nothing to prevent it. This surveillance is +not inherently necessary, and redesign could avoid it: free/libre +software in the user’s computer could download map data for the +pertinent regions (if not downloaded previously), compute the route, and +display it, without ever telling anyone where the user is or wants to +go. + +Systems for borrowing bicycles, etc., can be designed so that the +borrower’s identity is known only inside the station where the item was +borrowed. Borrowing would inform all stations that the item is “out,” so +when the user returns it at any station (in general, a different one), +that station will know where and when that item was borrowed. It will +inform the other station that the item is no longer “out.” It will also +calculate the user’s bill, and send it (after waiting some random number +of minutes) to headquarters along a ring of stations, so that +headquarters would not find out which station the bill came from. Once +this is done, the return station would forget all about the transaction. +If an item remains “out” for too long, the station where it was borrowed +can inform headquarters; in that case, it could send the borrower’s +identity immediately. + +### Remedy for Communications Dossiers {#remedy-for-communications-dossiers .subheading} + +Internet service providers and telephone companies keep extensive data +on their users’ contacts (browsing, phone calls, etc.). With mobile +phones, they also record the user’s physical location.[(31)](#FOOT31) +They keep these dossiers for a long time: over 30 years, in the case of +AT&T. Soon they will even record the user’s body +activities.[(32)](#FOOT32) It appears that the NSA collects cell phone +location data in bulk.[(33)](#FOOT33)\ + Unmonitored communication is impossible where systems create such +dossiers. So it should be illegal to create or keep them. ISPs and phone +companies must not be allowed to keep this information for very long, in +the absence of a court order to surveil a certain party. + +This solution is not entirely satisfactory, because it won’t physically +stop the government from collecting all the information immediately as +it is generated—which is what the US does with some or all phone +companies.[(34)](#FOOT34) We would have to rely on prohibiting that by +law. However, that would be better than the current situation, where the +relevant law (the PAT RIOT Act) does not clearly prohibit the practice. +In addition, if the government did resume this sort of surveillance, it +would not get data about everyone’s phone calls made prior to that time. + +For privacy about who you exchange email with, a simple partial solution +is for you and others to use email services in a country that would +never cooperate with your own government, and which communicate with +each other using encryption. However, Ladar Levison (owner of the mail +service Lavabit that US surveillance sought to corrupt completely) has a +more sophisticated idea for an encryption system through which your +email service would know only that you sent mail to some user of my +email service, and my email service would know only that I received mail +from some user of your email service, but it would be hard to determine +that you had sent mail to me. + +### But Some Surveillance Is Necessary {#but-some-surveillance-is-necessary .subheading} + +For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate +specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court +order. With the internet, the power to tap phone conversations would +naturally extend to the power to tap internet connections. This power is +easy to abuse for political reasons, but it is also necessary. +Fortunately, this won’t make it possible to find whistleblowers after +the fact, if (as I recommend) we prevent digital systems from +accumulating massive dossiers before the fact. + +Individuals with special state-granted power, such as police, forfeit +their right to privacy and must be monitored. (In fact, police have +their own jargon term for perjury, “testilying,”[(35)](#FOOT35) since +they do it so frequently, particularly about protesters and +photographers.[(36)](#FOOT36)) One city in California that required +police to wear video cameras all the time found their use of force fell +by 60 percent.[(37)](#FOOT37) The ACLU is in favor of this. + +Corporations are not people, and not entitled to human +rights.[(38)](#FOOT38) It is legitimate to require businesses to publish +the details of processes that might cause chemical, biological, nuclear, +fiscal, computational (e.g., DRM[(39)](#FOOT39)) or political (e.g., +lobbying) hazards to society, to whatever level is needed for public +well-being. The danger of these operations (consider the BP oil spill, +the Fukushima meltdowns, and the 2008 fiscal crisis) dwarfs that of +terrorism. + +However, journalism must be protected from surveillance even when it is +carried out as part of a business. + +Digital technology has brought about a tremendous increase in the level +of surveillance of our movements, actions, and communications. It is far +more than we experienced in the 1990s, and far more than people behind +the Iron Curtain experienced in the 1980s,[(40)](#FOOT40) and proposed +legal limits on state use of the accumulated data would not alter that. + +Companies are designing even more intrusive surveillance. Some project +that pervasive surveillance, hooked to companies such as Facebook, could +have deep effects on how people think.[(41)](#FOOT41)Such possibilities +are imponderable; but the threat to democracy is not speculation. It +exists and is visible today. + +Unless we believe that our free countries previously suffered from a +grave surveillance deficit, and ought to be surveilled more than the +Soviet Union and East Germany were, we must reverse this increase. That +requires stopping the accumulation of big data about people. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Maira Sutton, “We’re TPP Activists: Reddit Asked Us +Everything,” 21 November 2013, +<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/reddit-tpp-ama>. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright Glyn Moody, “How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft +Again?” 17 June 2013, +<http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again-3569376/>. +@end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright James Ball, Julian Borger and Glenn Greenwald, “Revealed: +How US and UK Spy Agencies Defeat Internet Privacy and Security,” +6 September 2013, +<http://theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security>. +@end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright Bruce Schneier, “Want to Evade NSA Spying? Don’t Connect to +the Internet,” 7 October 2013, <http://www.wired.com/2013/10/149481/>. +@end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright Dan Roberts, “Patriot Act Author Prepares Bill to Put NSA +Bulk Collection ’Out of Business,’” 10 October 2013, +<http://theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/nsa-surveillance-patriot-act-author-bill>. +@end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright Lucy Dalglish, “Lessons from Wye River,” The News Media & +the Law (Summer 2011): p. 1, +[http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/\ +news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/lessons-wye-river](http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/%3Cbr%3Enews-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/lessons-wye-river). +@end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright Washington Agencies, “Yemen leak: former FBI man admits +passing information to Associated Press,” 24 September 2013, +[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/\ +sep/24/yemen-leak-sachtleben-guilty-associated-press](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/%3Cbr%3Esep/24/yemen-leak-sachtleben-guilty-associated-press). +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “Verizon forced to hand over telephone data—full court +ruling” (6 June 2013), at +<http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order>, +for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under which the US +government “is collecting the phone records of millions of US customers +of Verizon.” @end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright Siobhan Gorman, Evan Perez, and Janet Hook, “NSA +Data-Mining Digs into Networks Beyond Verizon,” 7 June 2013, +<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nsa-data-mining-digs-into-networks-beyond-verizon-2013-06-07>. +@end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright ACLU, “Policing Free Speech: Police Surveillance And +Obstruction of First Amendment-Protected Activity,” 29 June 2010, +<https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Spyfiles_2_0.pdf>. @end raggedright + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright David Kravets, Kim Zetter, Kevin Poulsen, “NSA Illegally +Gorged on U.S. Phone Records for Three Years,” 10 September 2013, +<http://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-violations/>. @end raggedright + +### [(12)](#DOCF12) + +@raggedright Adam Gabbatt and agencies, “NSA Analysts ‘Wilfully +Violated’ Surveillance Systems, Agency Admits,” 24 August 2013, +<http://theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/nsa-analysts-abused-surveillance-systems>. +@end raggedright + +### [(13)](#DOCF13) + +@raggedright M. L. Elrick, “Cops Tap Database to Harass, Intimidate,” +31 July 2001, +<http://sweetliberty.org/issues/privacy/lein1.htm#.VeQiuxcpDow>. @end +raggedright + +### [(14)](#DOCF14) + +@raggedright Rick Falkvinge, “Collected Personal Data Will Always Be +Used against the Citizens,” 17 March 2012, +<http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/17/collected-personal-data-will-always-be-used-against-the-citizens/>. +@end raggedright + +### [(15)](#DOCF15) + +@raggedright Consider, for instance, the US internment of Japanese +Americans during WWII. @end raggedright + +### [(16)](#DOCF16) + +@raggedright Mike Masnick, “Second OPM Hack Revealed: Even Worse Than +the First,” 12 June 2015, +<https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150612/16334231330/second-opm-hack-revealed-even-worse-than-first.shtml>. +@end raggedright + +### [(17)](#DOCF17) + +@raggedright Joanna Berendt, “Macedonia Government Is Blamed for +Wiretapping Scandal,” 21 June 2015, +<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/world/europe/macedonia-government-is-blamed-for-wiretapping-scandal.html?_r=0>. +@end raggedright + +### [(18)](#DOCF18) + +@raggedright “International Principles on the Application of Human +Rights to Communications Surveillance,” last modified May 2014,\ + <https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text>. @end raggedright + +### [(19)](#DOCF19) + +@raggedright Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, “Officials Say U.S. +Wiretaps Exceeded Law,” 15 April 2009, +<http://nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(20)](#DOCF20) + +@raggedright For decades, the free software movement has been denouncing +the abusive surveillance machine of proprietary software companies such +as Microsoft and Apple. For a growing list of the ways in which +surveillance has spread across industries, not only in the software +business, but also in the hardware and—away from the keyboard—in the +mobile computing industry, in the office, at home, in transportation +systems, and in the classroom, see +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html>. +@end raggedright + +### [(21)](#DOCF21) + +@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server}) +for more information on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(22)](#DOCF22) + +@raggedright Nicole Perlroth, “In Cybersecurity, Sometimes the Weakest +Link Is a Family Member,” 21 May 2014, +[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/\ +in-cybersecurity-sometimes-the-weakest-link-is-a-family-member/](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/%3Cbr%3Ein-cybersecurity-sometimes-the-weakest-link-is-a-family-member/). +@end raggedright + +### [(23)](#DOCF23) + +@raggedright I assume here that the security camera points at the inside +of a store, or at the street. Any camera pointed at someone’s private +space by someone else violates privacy, but that is another issue. @end +raggedright + +### [(24)](#DOCF24) + +@raggedright Ms. Smith, “CIA Wants to Spy On You through Your +Appliances,” 18 March 2012, [http://networkworld.com/article/2221934/\ +microsoft-subnet/cia-wants-to-spy-on-you-through-your-appliances.html](http://networkworld.com/article/2221934/%3Cbr%3Emicrosoft-subnet/cia-wants-to-spy-on-you-through-your-appliances.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(25)](#DOCF25) + +@raggedright Jon Queally, “Latest Docs Show Financial Ties between NSA +and Internet Companies,” 23 August 2013, +<http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/08/23/latest-docs-show-financial-ties-between-nsa-and-internet-companies>. +@end raggedright + +### [(26)](#DOCF26) + +@raggedright Scott Shane and Colin Moynihan, “Drug Agents Use Vast Phone +Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.’s,” 1 September 2013, +[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/\ +drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/%3Cbr%3Edrug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html?_r=0). +@end raggedright + +### [(27)](#DOCF27) + +@raggedright Dan Kaminsky, “Let’s Cut through the Bitcoin Hype: A +Hacker-Entrepreneur’s Take,” 3 May 2013, +[http://wired.com/2013/05/lets-cut-through-the-\ +bitcoin-hype/](http://wired.com/2013/05/lets-cut-through-the-%3Cbr%3Ebitcoin-hype/). +@end raggedright + +### [(28)](#DOCF28) + +@raggedright Steven Levy, “E-Money (That’s What I Want),” Wired, 2.12 +(December 1994), +<http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/2.12/emoney_pr.html>. @end +raggedright + +### [(29)](#DOCF29) + +@raggedright Richard Bilton, “Camera Grid to Log Number Plates,” last +updated on 22 May 2009, +<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm>. +@end raggedright + +### [(30)](#DOCF30) + +@raggedright Nusrat Choudhury, “Victory! Federal Court Recognizes +Constitutional Rights of Americans on the No-Fly List,” 29 August 2013, +[https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-federal-court-recognizes-constitutional-rights-americans-\ +no-fly-list](https://www.aclu.org/blog/victory-federal-court-recognizes-constitutional-rights-americans-%3Cbr%3Eno-fly-list). +@end raggedright + +### [(31)](#DOCF31) + +@raggedright Kai Biermann, “Betrayed by Our Own Data,” 26 March 2011, +<http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2011-03/data-protection-malte-spitz>. +@end raggedright + +### [(32)](#DOCF32) + +@raggedright Sara M. Watson, “The Latest Smartphones Could Turn Us All +into Activity Trackers,” 10 October 2013, +[http://wired.com/2013/10/the-trojan-horse-\ +of-the-latest-iphone-with-the-m7-coprocessor-we-all-become-qs-\ +activity-trackers/](http://wired.com/2013/10/the-trojan-horse-%3Cbr%3Eof-the-latest-iphone-with-the-m7-coprocessor-we-all-become-qs-%3Cbr%3Eactivity-trackers/). +@end raggedright + +### [(33)](#DOCF33) + +@raggedright Patrick Toomey, “It Sure Sounds Like the NSA Is Tracking +Our Locations,” 30 September 2013, [https://aclu.org/blog/it-\ +sure-sounds-nsa-tracking-our-locations](https://aclu.org/blog/it-%3Cbr%3Esure-sounds-nsa-tracking-our-locations). +@end raggedright + +### [(34)](#DOCF34) + +@raggedright Glenn Greenwald, “NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions +of Verizon Customers Daily,” 6 June 2013, +<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order>. +@end raggedright + +### [(35)](#DOCF35) + +@raggedright See, for instance, the articles “Testilying: Cops Are Liars +Who Get Away with Perjury” (Nick Malinowski, 3 February 2013, +[http://vice.com/read/\ +testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury](http://vice.com/read/%3Cbr%3Etestilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury)) +and “Detective Is Found Guilty of Planting Drugs” (Tim Stelloh, +1 November 2011, +[http://nytimes.com/2011/11/02/nyregion/brooklyn-detective-convicted-of-\ +planting-drugs-on-innocent-people.html?pagewanted=all&\_r=0](http://nytimes.com/2011/11/02/nyregion/brooklyn-detective-convicted-of-%3Cbr%3Eplanting-drugs-on-innocent-people.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)), +for examples of the extent to which this practice has been normalized. +@end raggedright + +### [(36)](#DOCF36) + +@raggedright See the Photography Is Not a Crime web site, at\ + <http://photographyisnotacrime.com/>, for more on this issue. @end +raggedright + +### [(37)](#DOCF37) + +@raggedright Kevin Drum,“Ubiquitous Surveillance, Police Edition,” +22 August 2013,\ + [http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/ubiquitous-surveillance-\ +police-edition](http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/ubiquitous-surveillance-%3Cbr%3Epolice-edition). +@end raggedright + +### [(38)](#DOCF38) + +@raggedright Public Citizen, “Call Your Representative: Tell Her or Him +to Co-Sponsor a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United and +Restore Democracy to the People,” accessed August 2015, +<http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12266>. +@end raggedright + +### [(39)](#DOCF39) + +@raggedright See the related section in “Words to Avoid (or User with +Care)” (@pageref{DRM}) for more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(40)](#DOCF40) + +@raggedright James Allworth, “Your Smartphone Works for the Surveillance +State,” 7 June 2013, +<https://hbr.org/2013/06/your-iphone-works-for-the-secret-police>. @end +raggedright + +### [(41)](#DOCF41) + +@raggedright Evan Selinger and Brett Frischmann, “Will the Internet of +Things Result in Predictable People?” 10 August 2015, +<http://theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/10/internet-of-things-predictable-people>. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/the-danger-of-ebooks.md b/docs/the-danger-of-ebooks.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..591c853 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/the-danger-of-ebooks.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The Danger of E-Books {#the-danger-of-e-books .chapter} +======================== + +In an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws, +every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new +restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us +are used to chain us instead. + +With printed books, + +- You can buy one with cash, anonymously. +- Then you own it. +- You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use + of it. +- The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read + the book. +- You can give, lend or sell the book to another. +- You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it’s sometimes + lawful under copyright. +- Nobody has the power to destroy your book. + +Contrast that with Amazon e-books (fairly typical): + +- Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an e-book. +- In some countries, including the US, Amazon says the user cannot own + the e-book. +- Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of + the e-book. +- The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software + can read it at all. +- An ersatz “lending” is allowed for some books, for a limited time, + but only by specifying by name another user of the same system. No + giving or selling. +- To copy the e-book is impossible due to Digital Restrictions + Management[(1)](#FOOT1) in the player and prohibited by the license, + which is more restrictive than copyright law. +- Amazon can remotely delete the e-book using a back door. It used + this back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George + Orwell’s 1984. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2011, 2014 +Richard Stallman\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Even one of these infringements makes e-books a step backward from +printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our freedom. + +The e-book companies say denying our traditional freedoms is necessary +to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system supports those +companies handsomely and most authors badly. We can support authors +better in other ways that don’t require curtailing our freedom, and even +legalize sharing. Two methods I’ve suggested are: + +- To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each + author’s popularity.[(2)](#FOOT2) +- To design players so users can send authors anonymous + voluntary payments. + +E-books need not attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg’s e-books don’t), +but they will if companies get to decide. It’s up to us to stop them. + +Join the fight: sign up at <http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html>. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “The Right to Read” (@pageref{Right to Read}) for more +on this. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See both “Copyright vs. Community in the Age of Computer +Networks” (@pageref{Copyright vs. Community}) and my 2012 open letter to +the President of the Brazilian Senate, Senator José Sarney, at +<https://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html>, for +more on this. @end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ 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/).\ 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/).\ diff --git a/docs/who-does-that-server-really-serve.md b/docs/who-does-that-server-really-serve.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c94a36 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/who-does-that-server-really-serve.md @@ -0,0 +1,419 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Who Does That Server Really Serve? {#who-does-that-server-really-serve .chapter} +===================================== + +**On the internet, proprietary software isn’t the only way to lose your +freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is another way to +let someone else have power over your computing.** + +SaaSS means using a service implemented by someone else as a substitute +for running your copy of a program. The term is ours; articles and ads +won’t use it, and they won’t tell you whether a service is SaaSS. +Instead they will probably use the vague and distracting term “cloud,” +which lumps SaaSS together with various other practices, some abusive +and some OK. With the explanation and examples in this page, you can +tell whether a service is SaaSS. + +### Background: How Proprietary Software Takes away Your Freedom {#background-how-proprietary-software-takes-away-your-freedom .subheading} + +Digital technology can give you freedom; it can also take your freedom +away. The first threat to our control over our computing came from +*proprietary software*: software that the users cannot control because +the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft) controls it. The owner +often takes advantage of this unjust power by inserting malicious +features such as spyware, back doors, and Digital Restrictions +Management (DRM) (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in their +propaganda).[(1)](#FOOT1) @firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip +For more on this issue, see also “The Bug Nobody Is Allowed to +Understand,” at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html>. +@medskip @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015 Richard +Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published in the online edition of the +Boston Review, on 8 March 2010, under the title “What Does That Server +Really Serve?” This version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Our solution to this problem is developing *free software* and rejecting +proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four +essential freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and +change the source code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute +exact copies, and (3) to redistribute copies of your modified versions. +(See the free software definition (@pageref{Definition}).) + +With free software, we, the users, take back control of our computing. +Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it from our lives +and many of us have done so. However, we now face a new threat to our +control over our computing: Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). +For our freedom’s sake, we have to reject that too. + +### How Service as a Software Substitute Takes away Your Freedom {#how-service-as-a-software-substitute-takes-away-your-freedom .subheading} + +Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) means using a service as a +substitute for running your copy of a program. Concretely, it means that +someone sets up a network server that does certain computing tasks—for +instance, modifying a photo, translating text into another language, +etc.—then invites users to do computing via that server. A user of the +server would send her data to the server, which does *her own computing* +on the data thus provided, then sends the results back to her or acts +directly on her behalf. + +The computing is *her own* because, by assumption, she could, in +principle, have done it by running a program on her own computer +(whether or not that program is available to her at present). When this +assumption is not so, it isn’t SaaSS. + +These servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably than +proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically get an +executable file but not the source code. That makes it hard to study the +code that is running, so it’s hard to determine what the program really +does, and hard to change it. + +With SaaSS, the users do not have even the executable file that does +their computing: it is on someone else’s server, where the users can’t +see or touch it. Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain what it +really does, and impossible to change it. + +Furthermore, SaaSS automatically leads to consequences equivalent to the +malicious features of certain proprietary software. + +For instance, some proprietary programs are “spyware”: the program sends +out data about users’ computing activities.[(2)](#FOOT2) Microsoft +Windows sends information about users’ activities to Microsoft. Windows +Media Player reports what each user watches or listens to. The Amazon +Kindle reports which pages of which books the user looks at, and when. +Angry Birds reports the user’s geolocation history. + +Unlike proprietary software, SaaSS does not require covert code to +obtain the user’s data. Instead, users must send their data to the +server in order to use it. This has the same effect as spyware: the +server operator gets the data—with no special effort, by the nature of +SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of her daughter, +made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit photos of her. +Eventually they leaked from there.[(3)](#FOOT3) + +Some proprietary operating systems have a universal back door, +permitting someone to remotely install software changes. For instance, +Windows has a universal back door with which Microsoft can forcibly +change any software on the machine. Nearly all portable phones have +them, too. Some proprietary applications also have universal back doors; +for instance, the Steam client for GNU/Linux allows the developer to +remotely install modified versions. + +With SaaSS, the server operator can change the software in use on the +server. He ought to be able to do this, since it’s his computer; but the +result is the same as using a proprietary application program with a +universal back door: someone has the power to silently impose changes in +how the user’s computing gets done. + +Thus, SaaSS is equivalent to running proprietary software with spyware +and a universal back door. It gives the server operator unjust power +over the user, and that power is something we must resist. + +### SaaSS and SaaS {#saass-and-saas .subheading} + +Originally we referred to this problematical practice as “SaaS,” which +stands for “Software as a Service.” It’s a commonly used term for +setting up software on a server rather than offering copies of it to +users, and we thought it described precisely the cases where this +problem occurs. + +Subsequently we became aware that the term SaaS is sometimes used for +communication services—activities for which this issue is not +applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service” doesn’t +explain *why* the practice is bad. So we coined the term “Service as a +Software Substitute,” which defines the bad practice more clearly and +says what is bad about it. + +### Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software Issue {#untangling-the-saass-issue-from-the-proprietary-software-issue .subheading} + +SaaSS and proprietary software lead to similar harmful results, but the +mechanisms are different. With proprietary software, the mechanism is +that you have and use a copy which is difficult and/or illegal to +change. With SaaSS, the mechanism is that you don’t have the copy that’s +doing your computing. + +These two issues are often confused, and not only by accident. Web +developers use the vague term “web application” to lump the server +software together with programs run on your machine in your browser. +Some web pages install nontrivial, even large JavaScript programs into +your browser without informing you. When these JavaScript programs are +nonfree,[(4)](#FOOT4) they cause the same sort of injustice as any other +nonfree software. Here, however, we are concerned with the issue of +using the service itself. + +Many free software supporters assume that the problem of SaaSS will be +solved by developing free software for servers. For the server +operator’s sake, the programs on the server had better be free; if they +are proprietary, their owners have power over the server. That’s unfair +to the server operator, and doesn’t help the users at all. But if the +programs on the server are free, that doesn’t protect *the server’s +users* from the effects of SaaSS. These programs liberate the server +operator, but not the server’s users. + +Releasing the server software source code does benefit the community: it +enables suitably skilled users to set up similar servers, perhaps +changing the software. We recommend using the GNU Affero GPL as the +license for programs often used on servers.[(5)](#FOOT5) + +But none of these servers would give you control over computing you do +on it, unless it’s *your* server. It may be OK to trust your friend’s +server for some jobs, just as you might let your friend maintain the +software on your own computer. Outside of that, all these servers would +be SaaSS for you. SaaSS always subjects you to the power of the server +operator, and the only remedy is, *Don’t use SaaSS!* Don’t use someone +else’s server to do your own computing on data provided by you. + +This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between “open” and +“free.” Source code that is open source is, nearly always, +free.[(6)](#FOOT6) However, the idea of an “open software” +service,[(7)](#FOOT7) meaning one whose server software is open source +and/or free, fails to address the issue of SaaSS. + +Services are fundamentally different from programs, and the ethical +issues that services raise are fundamentally different from the issues +that programs raise. To avoid confusion, we avoid describing a service +as “free” or “proprietary.”[(8)](#FOOT8) + +### Distinguishing SaaSS from Other Network Services {#distinguishing-saass-from-other-network-services .subheading} + +Which online services are SaaSS? The clearest example is a translation +service, which translates (say) English text into Spanish text. +Translating a text for you is computing that is purely yours. You could +do it by running a program on your own computer, if only you had the +right program. (To be ethical, that program should be free.) The +translation service substitutes for that program, so it is Service as a +Software Substitute, or SaaSS. Since it denies you control over your +computing, it does you wrong. + +Another clear example is using a service such as Flickr or Instagram to +modify a photo. Modifying photos is an activity that people have done in +their own computers for decades; doing it in a server instead of your +own computer is SaaSS. + +Rejecting SaaSS does not mean refusing to use any network servers run by +anyone other than you. Most servers are not SaaSS because the jobs they +do are not the user’s own computing. + +The original idea of web servers wasn’t to do computing for you, it was +to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most +web sites do, and it doesn’t pose the SaaSS problem, because accessing +someone’s published information isn’t doing your own computing. Neither +is publishing your own materials via a blog site or a microblogging +service such as Twitter or StatusNet. (These services may have other +problems, of course.) The same goes for other communication not meant to +be private, such as chat groups. + +In its essence, social networking is a form of communication and +publication, not SaaSS. However, a service whose main facility is social +networking can have features or extensions which are SaaSS. + +If a service is not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are other +ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook distributes video +in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree software; it requires +running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives users a misleading +impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to +Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS issue. + +Services such as search engines collect data from around the web and let +you examine it. Looking through their collection of data isn’t your own +computing in the usual sense—you didn’t provide that collection—so using +such a service to search the web is not SaaSS. However, using someone +else’s server to implement a search facility for your own site *is* +SaaSS. + +Purchasing online is not SaaSS, because the computing isn’t *your own*; +rather, it is done jointly by and for you and the store. The real issue +in online shopping is whether you trust the other party with your money +and other personal information (starting with your name). + +Repository sites such as as Savannah and SourceForge are not inherently +SaaSS, because a repository’s job is publication of data supplied to it. + +Using a joint project’s servers isn’t SaaSS because the computing you do +in this way isn’t your own. For instance, if you edit pages on +Wikipedia, you are not doing your own computing; rather, you are +collaborating in Wikipedia’s computing. Wikipedia controls its own +servers, but organizations as well as individuals encounter the problem +of SaaSS if they do their computing in someone else’s server. + +Some sites offer multiple services, and if one is not SaaSS, another may +be SaaSS. For instance, the main service of Facebook is social +networking, and that is not SaaSS; however, it supports third-party +applications, some of which are SaaSS. Flickr’s main service is +distributing photos, which is not SaaSS, but it also has features for +editing photos, which is SaaSS. Likewise, using Instagram to post a +photo is not SaaSS, but using it to transform the photo is SaaSS. + +Google Docs shows how complex the evaluation of a single service can +become. It invites people to edit a document by running a large nonfree +JavaScript program,[(9)](#FOOT9) clearly wrong. However, it offers an +API for uploading and downloading documents in standard formats. A free +software editor can do so through this API. This usage scenario is not +SaaSS, because it uses Google Docs as a mere repository. Showing all +your data to a company is bad, but that is a matter of privacy, not +SaaSS; depending on a service for access to your data is bad, but that +is a matter of risk, not SaaSS. On the other hand, using the service for +converting document formats *is* SaaSS, because it’s something you could +have done by running a suitable program (free, one hopes) in your own +computer. + +Using Google Docs through a free editor is rare, of course. Most often, +people use it through the nonfree JavaScript program, which is bad like +any nonfree program. This scenario might involve SaaSS, too; that +depends on what part of the editing is done in the JavaScript program +and what part in the server. We don’t know, but since SaaSS and +proprietary software do similar wrong to the user, it is not crucial to +know. + +Publishing via someone else’s repository does not raise privacy issues, +but publishing through Google Docs has a special problem: it is +impossible even to *view the text* of a Google Docs document in a +browser without running the nonfree JavaScript code. Thus, you should +not use Google Docs to publish anything—but the reason is not a matter +of SaaSS. + +The IT industry discourages users from making these distinctions. That’s +what the buzzword “cloud computing” is for. This term is so nebulous +that it could refer to almost any use of the internet. It includes SaaSS +as well as many other network usage practices. In any given context, an +author who writes “cloud” (if a technical person) probably has a +specific meaning in mind, but usually does not explain that in other +articles the term has other specific meanings. The term leads people to +generalize about practices they ought to consider individually. + +If “cloud computing” has a meaning, it is not a way of doing computing, +but rather a way of thinking about computing: a devil-may-care approach +which says, “Don’t ask questions. Don’t worry about who controls your +computing or who holds your data. Don’t check for a hook hidden inside +our service before you swallow it. Trust companies without hesitation.” +In other words, “Be a sucker.” A cloud in the mind is an obstacle to +clear thinking. For the sake of clear thinking about computing, let’s +avoid the term “cloud.” + +### Dealing with the SaaSS Problem {#dealing-with-the-saass-problem .subheading} + +Only a small fraction of all web sites do SaaSS; most don’t raise the +issue. But what should we do about the ones that raise it? + +For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in +your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free +software application. Do your text editing with your copy of a free text +editor such as GNU Emacs or a free word processor. Do your photo editing +with your copy of free software such as GIMP. What if there is no free +program available? A proprietary program or SaaSS would take away your +freedom, so you shouldn’t use those. You can contribute your time or +your money to development of a free replacement. + +What about collaborating with other individuals as a group? It may be +hard to do this at present without using a server, and your group may +not know how to run its own server. If you use someone else’s server, at +least don’t trust a server run by a company. A mere contract as a +customer is no protection unless you could detect a breach and could +really sue, and the company probably writes its contracts to permit a +broad range of abuses. The state can subpoena your data from the company +along with everyone else’s, as Obama has done to phone companies, +supposing the company doesn’t volunteer them like the US phone companies +that illegally wiretapped their customers for Bush. If you must use a +server, use a server whose operators give you a basis for trust beyond a +mere commercial relationship. + +However, on a longer time scale, we can create alternatives to using +servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program through +which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free software +community should develop distributed peer-to-peer replacements for +important “web applications.” It may be wise to release them under the +GNU Affero GPL, since they are likely candidates for being converted +into server-based programs by someone else.[(10)](#FOOT10) The GNU +Project is looking for volunteers to work on such replacements. We also +invite other free software projects to consider this issue in their +design. + +In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do your +own computing tasks, don’t yield; don’t use SaaSS. Don’t buy or install +“thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak they make you do the +real work on a server, unless you’re going to use them with *your* +server. Use a real computer and keep your data there. Do your own +computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom’s sake. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Please join our campaign against DRM, at +[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright For a growing list of the ways in which surveillance has +spread across industries, see +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html>. +@end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright Amy Webb, “Congratulations, You Found a Photo of My +Daughter Online,” 12 September 2013, +[http://slate.com/articles/technology/data\_mine\_1/\ +2013/09/privacy\_facebook\_kids\_don\_t\_post\_photos\_of\_your\_kids\_on\_\ +social\_media.html](http://slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/%3Cbr%3E2013/09/privacy_facebook_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_on_%3Cbr%3Esocial_media.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “The JavaScript Trap” (@pageref{JavaScript Trap}) for +more information on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “How to Choose a License for Your Own Work” +(@pageref{License Recommendations}) for our licensing recommendations. +@end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See “How Free Software and Open Source Relate as Categories +of Programs,” at <http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html> for +more information. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright For the “Open Software Service Definition,” see +<http://opendefinition.org/ossd/index.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright For more information, see my article “Network Services +Aren’t Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues,” at +[http://gnu.org/philosophy/\ +network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html](http://gnu.org/philosophy/%3Cbr%3Enetwork-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright See “The JavaScript Trap” (@pageref{JavaScript Trap}) for +more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright See “Why the Affero GPL,” at +<http://gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html>, for a full explanation. +@end raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md b/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a3c2f3b --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/why-call-it-the-swindle.md @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Call It the Swindle? {#why-call-it-the-swindle .chapter} +=========================== + +I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize them. I +call Apple’s user-subjugating computers the “iThings,” and Amazon’s +abusive e-reader the “Swindle.” Sometimes I refer to Microsoft’s +operating system as “Losedows”; I referred to Microsoft’s first +operating system as “MS-Dog.”[(1)](#FOOT1) Of course, I do this to vent +my feelings and have fun. But this fun is more than personal; it serves +an important purpose. Mocking our enemies recruits the power of humor +into our cause. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2013 Richard +Stallman\ + {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +Twisting a name is disrespectful. If we respected the makers of these +products, we would use the names that they chose…and that’s exactly the +point. These noxious products deserve our contempt, not our respect. +Every proprietary program subjects its users to some entity’s power, but +nowadays most widely used ones go beyond that to spy on users, restrict +them and even push them around: the trend is for products to get +nastier. These products deserve to be wiped out. Those with DRM ought to +be illegal. + +When we mention them, we should show that we condemn them, and what +easier way than by twisting their names? If we don’t do that, it is all +too easy to mention them and fail to present the condemnation. When the +product comes up in the middle of some other topic, for instance, +explaining at greater length that the product is bad might seem like a +long digression. + +To mention these products by name and fail to condemn them has the +effect of legitimizing them, which is the opposite of what they call +for. + +Companies choose names for products as part of a marketing plan. They +choose names they think people will be likely to repeat, then invest +millions of dollars in marketing campaigns to make people repeat and +think about those names. Usually these marketing campaigns are intended +to convince people to admire the products based on their superficial +attractions and overlook the harm they do. + +Every time we call these products by the names the companies use, we +contribute to their marketing campaigns. Repeating those names is active +support for the products; twisting them denies the products our support. + +Other terminology besides product names can raise a similar issue. For +instance, DRM refers to building technology products to restrict their +users for the benefit of someone else. This inexcusable practice +deserves our burning hatred until we wipe it out. Naturally, those +responsible gave it a name that frames the issue from their point of +view: “Digital Rights Management.” This name is the basis of a public +relations campaign that aims to win support from entities ranging from +governments to the W3C.[(2)](#FOOT2) + +To use their term is to take their side. If that’s not the side you’re +on, why give it your implicit support? + +We take the users’ side, and from the users’ point of view, what these +malfeatures manage are not rights but restrictions. So we call them +“Digital Restrictions Management.” + +Neither of those terms is neutral: choose a term, and you choose a side. +Please choose the users’ side and please let it show. + +Once, a man in the audience at my speech claimed that the name “Digital +Rights Management” was the official name of “DRM,” the only possible +correct name, because it was the first name. He argued that as a +consequence it was wrong for us to say “Digital Restrictions +Management.” + +Those who make a product or carry out a business practice typically +choose a name for it before we even know it exists. If their temporal +precedence obligated us to use their name, they would have an additional +automatic advantage, on top of their money, their media influence and +their technological position. We would have to fight them with our +mouths tied behind our backs. + +Some people feel a distaste for twisting names and say it sounds +“juvenile” or “unprofessional.” What they mean is, it doesn’t sound +humorless and stodgy—and that’s a good thing, because we would not have +laughter on our side if we tried to sound “professional.” Fighting +oppression is far more serious than professional work, so we’ve got to +add comic relief. It calls for real maturity, which includes some +childishness, not “acting like an adult.” + +If you don’t like our choice of name parodies, you can invent your own. +The more, the merrier. Of course, there are other ways to express +condemnation. If you want to sound “professional,” you can show it in +other ways. They can get the point across, but they require more time +and effort, especially if you don’t make use of mockery. Take care this +does not this lead you to skimp; don’t let the pressure against such +“digression” push you into insufficiently criticizing the nasty things +you mention, because that would have the effect of legitimizing them. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Take action against iThings, at +[u.fsf.org/ithings](u.fsf.org/ithings), against the Swindle, at +[u.fsf.org/swindle](u.fsf.org/swindle) and +[u.fsf.org/ebookslist](u.fsf.org/ebookslist), and against Windows, at +[upgradefromwindows.org](upgradefromwindows.org). @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See <https://u.fsf.org/drm> for more on DRM. @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/why-copyleft.md b/docs/why-copyleft.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5919d95 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/why-copyleft.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Why Copyleft? {#why-copyleft .chapter} +================ + +> When it comes to defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do +> nothing is an act of weakness, not humility. + +In the GNU Project we usually recommend people use copyleft[(1)](#FOOT1) +licenses like GNU GPL, rather than permissive noncopyleft free software +licenses. We don’t argue harshly against the noncopyleft licenses—in +fact, we occasionally recommend them in special circumstances—but the +advocates of those licenses show a pattern of arguing harshly against +the GPL. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule@smallskip Copyright © 2003, 2007, +2008, 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2003. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +In one such argument, a person stated that his use of one of the BSD +licenses was an “act of humility”: “I ask nothing of those who use my +code, except to credit me.” It is rather a stretch to describe a legal +demand for credit as “humility,” but there is a deeper point to be +considered here. + +Humility is abnegating your own self interest, but you and the one who +uses your code are not the only ones affected by your choice of which +free software license to use for your code. Someone who uses your code +in a nonfree program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let +him do it, you’re failing to defend their freedom. When it comes to +defending the freedom of others, to lie down and do nothing is an act of +weakness, not humility. + +Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other +permissive noncopyleft license, is not doing wrong; the program is still +free software, and still a contribution to our community. But it is +weak, and in most cases it is not the best way to promote users’ freedom +to share and change software. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See “What Is Copyleft?” (@pageref{Copyleft}). @end +raggedright + +</div> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ diff --git a/docs/why-gnu-linux.md b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d08205 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/why-gnu-linux.md @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. What’s in a Name? {#whats-in-a-name .chapter} +==================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{To learn more about this issue, you can read our +GNU/Linux FAQ, at <http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, the essay +“Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}), which gives a +history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of naming, +and the article “GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU,” at +<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html>.\ + @footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 2000. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} Names convey meanings; our choice of +names determines the meaning of what we say. An inappropriate name gives +people the wrong idea. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but +if you call it a pen, people will be rather disappointed when they try +to write with it. And if you call pens “roses,” people may not realize +what they are good for. If you call our operating system Linux, that +conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. If +you call it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate +idea. + +Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether +people know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because +people who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free +World that has developed around GNU/Linux is not guaranteed to survive; +the problems that led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, +and they threaten to come back. + +When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system +GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people sometimes respond this way: + +> Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it +> really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important +> thing that the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take +> pride in the job well done, and not worry about the credit. + +This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the +job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But +challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for granted. +Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. +Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind themselves and +inform others of these goals. + +It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; much +good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term “Linux” +has been associated ever since it was first coined with a philosophy +that does not make a commitment to the freedom to cooperate. As the name +is increasingly used by business, we will have even more trouble making +it connect with community spirit. + +A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the tendency +of the “Linux” distribution companies to add nonfree software to +GNU/Linux in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial +distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software. +Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree packages in their +distributions. Many even develop nonfree software and add it to the +system. Some outrageously advertise “Linux” systems that are “licensed +per seat,” which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows. + +People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the +“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. +Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired magazine said +that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels that the move +toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than +political, decisions.”And Caldera’s CEO openly urged users to drop the +goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of +Linux.”[(1)](#FOOT1) + +Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the +popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of +GNU/Linux in combination with nonfree software. But at the same time, it +implicitly encourages the community to accept nonfree software as a good +thing, and forget the goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if +you can’t stay on the road. + +When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming tool, it can +become a trap for free software developers. When they write free +software that depends on the nonfree package, their software cannot be +part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt trapped large amounts of +free software in this way in the past, creating problems whose solutions +took years. Motif remained somewhat of a problem until it became +obsolete and was no longer used. Later, Sun’s nonfree + +Java implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap,[(2)](#FOOT2) +fortunately now mostly corrected. If our community keeps moving in this +direction, it could redirect the future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of +free and nonfree components. Five years from now, we will surely still +have plenty of free software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly +be usable without the nonfree software that users expect to find with +it. If this happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed. + +If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming, +solving future problems might become easier as our community’s +development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten to +make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software patents +mount up, and as laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act are used +to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs such as +viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find ourselves +with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data formats except +to *reject the nonfree programs that use them.* + +Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort. +But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to +remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can’t expect a mere desire +for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make great +efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have when they +fight for their freedom and their community—determination to keep on for +years and not give up. + +In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from +the GNU Project. We’re the ones who talk about freedom and community as +something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of “Linux” +normally don’t say this. The magazines about “Linux” are typically full +of ads for nonfree software; the companies that package “Linux” add +nonfree software to the system; other companies “support Linux” by +developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups for +“Linux” typically invite salesmen to present those applications. The +main place people in our community are likely to come across the idea of +freedom and determination is in the GNU Project. + +But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them? + +People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project +can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t +automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a +reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider +themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed +tools which proved to be useful in Linux,” typically perceive only an +indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore +the GNU philosophy when they come across it. + +The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today +faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to +dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely +practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. +People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made +real. + +If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except +credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not +in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be +done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please +help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright Dietmar Muller, “Stallman: Love Is Not Free,” 10 July 2001, +<http://zdnet.com/article/stallman-love-is-not-free/>. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See “Free but Shackled—The Java Trap,” at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.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/).\ diff --git a/docs/words-to-avoid.md b/docs/words-to-avoid.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ebd64fd --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/words-to-avoid.md @@ -0,0 +1,964 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)\ +Because They Are Loaded or Confusing {#words-to-avoid-or-use-with-care-becausetheyareloadedorconfusing .chapter} +===================================== + +There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or +avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or +misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and we +hope you disagree with it too. (See also “Categories of Free and Nonfree +Software” (@pageref{Categories}) and “Why Call It the Swindle?” +(@pageref{Swindle}).) + +### “Access” {#access .subheading} + +It is a common misunderstanding to think free software means that the +public has “access” to a program. That is not what free software means. + +The criterion for free software[(1)](#FOOT1) is not about who has +“access” to the program; the four essential freedoms concern what a user +that has a copy of the program can do with it. For instance, freedom 2 +says that that user is free to make another copy and give or sell it to +you. But no user is *obligated* to do that for you; you do not have a +*right* to demand a copy of that program from any user. + +@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 1996–1999, +2001–2004, 2007–2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\ + {This list was first published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1996. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} + +In particular, if you write a program yourself and never offer a copy to +anyone else, that program is free software (in a trivial way) because +you (the sole user that has it) have the four essential freedoms. + +In practice, when many users have copies of a program, someone is sure +to post it on the internet, giving everyone access to it. We think +people ought to do that, if the program is useful. But this isn’t a +requirement of free software. + +There is one specific point in which a question of having access is +directly pertinent to free software: the GNU GPL permits giving a +particular user access to download a program’s source code as a +substitute for physically giving that user a copy of the source. This +applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of the +program in non-source form. + +### “Alternative” {#alternative .subheading} + +We don’t describe free software as an “alternative” to proprietary, +because that word presumes all the “alternatives” are legitimate and +each additional one makes users better off. In effect, it assumes that +free software ought to coexist with software that does not respect +users’ freedom. + +We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way to +make software available for others to use. The other methods, nonfree +software and {@parfillskip=0pt@par Service as a Software Substitute +subjugate their users.[(2)](#FOOT2) We do not think it is good to offer +users those “alternatives” to free software. + +### “BSD-Style” {#bsd-style .subheading} + +The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it lumps +together licenses that have important differences.[(3)](#FOOT3) For +instance, the original BSD license with the advertising clause is +incompatible with the GNU General Public License, but the revised BSD +license is compatible with the GPL. + +To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in +question[(4)](#FOOT4) and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.” + +### “Closed” {#closed .subheading} + +Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open +source.” In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused +with the open source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that +would encourage people to lump us in with them.[(5)](#FOOT5) For +instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as “closed.” We call it +“nonfree” or “proprietary.”[(6)](#FOOT6) + +### “Cloud Computing” {#cloud-computing .subheading} + +The term “cloud computing” (or just “cloud,” in the context of +computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning. It is used +for a range of different activities whose only common characteristic is +that they use the internet for something beyond transmitting files. +Thus, the term spreads confusion. If you base your thinking on it, your +thinking will be confused. + +When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made +using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. What scenario +is the statement about? What is a good, clear term for that scenario? +Once the topic is clearly formulated, coherent discussion is possible. + +One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing your data in +online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish because it exposes +you to surveillance.[(7)](#FOOT7) + +Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing) is +Service as a Software Substitute, which denies you control over your +computing. You should never use SaaSS.[(8)](#FOOT8) + +Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server. +These practices are OK under certain circumstances. + +Another meaning is accessing your own server from your own mobile +device. That raises no particular ethical issues. + +The NIST definition of “cloud computing” [(9)](#FOOT9) mentions three +scenarios that raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, +Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that +definition does not match the common use of “cloud computing,” since it +does not include storing data in online services. Software as a Service +as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a Software +Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts are not +equivalent. + +These different computing practices don’t even belong in the same +discussion. The best way to avoid the confusion the term “cloud +computing” spreads is not to use the term “cloud” in connection with +computing. Talk about the scenario you mean, and call it by a specific +term. + +Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also noted +the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”[(10)](#FOOT10) He decided to +use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software developer, he +isn’t motivated by the same ideals as we are. + +### “Commercial” {#commercial .subheading} + +Please don’t use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses +two entirely different issues. + +A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A +commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of +distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual +can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two +questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its +users have—are independent. + +In the first decade of the free software movement, free software +packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the +GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit +organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, +free commercial software started to appear. + +Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we +should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means +“nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is +self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let’s be careful not to +use the word “commercial” in that way. + +### “Compensation” {#compensation .subheading} + +To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright +carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of +authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt to the +author which we must then repay. The first assumption is simply +false,[(11)](#FOOT11) and the second is outrageous. + +“Compensating the rights-holders” adds a further swindle: you’re +supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and occasionally it +does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the same publishing +companies that are pushing unjust laws on us. + +### “Consume” {#consume .subheading} + +“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, after which the +food as such no longer exists. By analogy, we employ the same word for +other products whose use *uses them up.* Applying it to durable goods, +such as clothing or appliances, is a stretch. Applying it to published +works (programs, recordings on a disk or in a file, books on paper or in +a file), whose nature is to last indefinitely and which can be run, +played or read any number of times, is simply an error. Playing a +recording, or running a program, does not consume it. + +The term “consume” is associated with the economics of uncopyable +material products, and leads people to transfer its conclusions +unconsciously to copyable digital works—an error that proprietary +software developers (and other publishers) dearly wish to encourage. +Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly in a Business Insider +article,[(12)](#FOOT12) which also refers to publications as “content.” + +The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume content” +paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid users to break the +Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If +users think what they do with these devices is “consume,” they may see +such restrictions as natural. + +It also encourages the acceptation of “streaming” services, which use +DRM to limit use of digital recordings to a form that fits the word +“consume.” + +Why is this perverse usage spreading? Some may feel that the term sounds +sophisticated; if that attracts you, rejecting it with cogent reasons +can appear even more sophisticated. Others may be acting from business +interests (their own, or their employers’). Their use of the term in +prestigious forums gives the impression that it’s the “correct” term. + +To speak of “consuming” music, fiction, or any other artistic works is +to treat them as products rather than as art. If you don’t want to +spread that attitude, you would do well to reject using the term +“consume” for them. We recommend saying that someone “experiences” an +artistic work or a work stating a point of view, and that someone “uses” +a practical work. + +### “Consumer” {#consumer .subheading} + +The term “consumer,” when used to refer to the users of computing, is +loaded with assumptions we should reject. Some come from the idea that +using the program “consumes” the program (see the previous entry), which +leads people to impose on copyable digital works the economic +conclusions that were drawn about uncopyable material products. + +In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers” refers to a +framing in which people are limited to selecting between whatever +“products” are available in the “market.” There is no room in this +framing for the idea that users can directly exercise control over what +a program does.[(13)](#FOOT13) + +To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we +suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens,” rather than +“consumers.” + +This problem with the word “consumer” has been noted +before.[(14)](#FOOT14) + +### “Content” {#content .subheading} + +If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all +means say you are “content,” but using the word as a noun to describe +publications and works of authorship adopts an attitude you might rather +avoid: it treats them as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and +make money. In effect, it disparages the works themselves. If you don’t +agree with that attitude, you can call them “works” or “publications.” + +Those who use the term “content” are often the publishers that push for +increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as +they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals their real attitude +towards these works and their authors. (See Courtney Love’s open letter +to Steve Case[(15)](#FOOT15) and search for “content provider” in that +page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is +also biased and confusing.[(16)](#FOOT16)) + +However, as long as other people use the term “content provider,” +political dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers.” + +The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. “Content” +means “some sort of information,” and “management” in this context means +“doing something with it.” So a “content management system” is a system +for doing something to some sort of information. Nearly all programs fit +that description. + +In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages on +a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision system” +(WRS). + +### “Creative Commons Licensed” {#creative-commons-licensed .subheading} + +The most important licensing characteristic of a work is whether it is +free. Creative Commons publishes seven licenses; three are free (CC BY, +CC BY-SA and CC0) and the rest are nonfree. Thus, to describe a work as +“Creative Commons licensed” fails to say whether it is free, and +suggests that the question is not important. The statement may be +accurate, but the omission is harmful. + +To encourage people to pay attention to the most important distinction, +always specify *which* Creative Commons license is used, as in “licensed +under CC BY-SA.” If you don’t know which license a certain work uses, +find out and then make your statement. + +### “Creator” {#creator .subheading} + +The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a +deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate +authors’ moral standing above that of ordinary people in order to +justify giving them increased copyright power, which the publishers can +then exercise in their name. We recommend saying “author” instead. +However, in many cases “copyright holder” is what you really mean. These +two terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the +author. + +### “Digital Goods” {#digital-goods .subheading} + +The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of authorship, +identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be copied, and which +therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and sold. This metaphor +encourages people to judge issues about software or other digital works +based on their views and intuitions about physical goods. It also frames +issues in terms of economics, whose shallow and limited values don’t +include freedom and community. + +### “Digital Locks” {#digital-locks .subheading} + +“Digital locks” is used to refer to Digital Restrictions Management by +some who criticize it. The problem with this term is that it fails to do +justice to the badness of DRM. The people who adopted that term did not +think it through. + +Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad. You probably own several +locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or +troublesome, but they don’t oppress you, because you can open and close +them. Likewise, we find encryption[(17)](#FOOT17) invaluable for +protecting our digital files. That too is a kind of digital lock that +you have control over. + +DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to give +you the key—in other words, like *handcuffs.* Therefore, the proper +metaphor for DRM is “digital handcuffs,” not “digital locks.” + +A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term “digital +locks”; to get things back on the right track, we must firmly insist on +correcting this mistake. The FSF can support a campaign that opposes +“digital locks” if we agree on the substance; however, when we state our +support, we conspicuously replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and +say why. + +### “Digital Rights Management” {#digital-rights-management .subheading} + +“Digital Rights Management” (abbreviated “DRM”) refers to technical +mechanisms designed to impose restrictions on computer users. The use of +the word “rights” in this term is propaganda, designed to lead you +unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that impose +the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general public on whom these +restrictions are imposed. + +Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and +“digital handcuffs.” + +@raggedright Please sign up to support our campaign to abolish DRM, at +[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). @end raggedright + +### “Ecosystem” {#ecosystem .subheading} + +It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human +community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence of +ethical judgment. + +The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of nonjudgmental +observation: don’t ask how what *should* happen, just study and +understand what *does* happen. In an ecosystem, some organisms consume +other organisms. In ecology, we do not ask whether it is right for an +owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a seed, we only observe that +they do so. Species’ populations grow or shrink according to the +conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, merely an ecological +phenomenon, even if it goes so far as the extinction of a species. + +By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their +surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their +intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy, human +rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and water, +endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users’ freedom. + +### “FLOSS” {#floss .subheading} + +The term “FLOSS,” meaning “Free/Libre and Open Source Software,” was +coined as a way to be neutral between free software and open +source.[(18)](#FOOT18) If neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” is the best +way to be neutral. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don’t +use a neutral term. + +### “For Free” {#for-free .subheading} + +If you want to say that a program is free software, please don’t say +that it is available “for free.” That term specifically means “for zero +price.” Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. + +Free software copies are often available for free—for example, by +downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available for a +price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are +occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary +packages are normally available at no charge to certain users. + +To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available “as free +software.” + +### “FOSS” {#foss .subheading} + +The term “FOSS,” meaning “Free and Open Source Software,” was coined as +a way to be neutral between free software and open source, but it +doesn’t really do that.[(19)](#FOOT19) If neutrality is your goal, +“FLOSS” is better. But if you want to show you stand for freedom, don’t +use a neutral term. + +### “Freely Available” {#freely-available .subheading} + +Don’t use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free software.” +The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely available” if anyone +can easily get a copy. “Free software” is defined in terms of the +freedom of users that have a copy of it. These are answers to different +questions. + +### “Freeware” {#freeware .subheading} + +Please don’t use the term “freeware” as a synonym for “free software.” +The term “freeware” was used often in the 1980s for programs released +only as executables, with source code not available. Today it has no +particular agreed-on definition. + +When using languages other than English, please avoid borrowing English +terms such as “free software” or “freeware.” It is better to translate +the term “free software” into your language. (Please see @pageref{FS +Translations} for a list of recommended unambiguous translations for the +term “free software” into various languages.) + +By using a word in your own language, you show that you are really +referring to freedom and not just parroting some mysterious foreign +marketing concept. The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or +disturbing to your compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly +what it says, they will really understand what the issue is. + +### “Give Away Software” {#give-away-software .subheading} + +It’s misleading to use the term “give away” to mean “distribute a +program as free software.” This locution has the same problem as “for +free”: it implies the issue is price, not freedom. One way to avoid the +confusion is to say “release as free software.” + +### “Google” {#google .subheading} + +Please avoid using the term “google” as a verb, meaning to search for +something on the internet. “Google” is just the name of one particular +search engine among others. We suggest to use the term “web search” +instead. Try to use a search engine that respects your privacy; +DuckDuckGo claims not to track its users,[(20)](#FOOT20) although we +cannot confirm. + +### “Hacker” {#hacker .subheading} + +A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness[(21)](#FOOT21)—not +necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT free software +community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as hackers. Around +1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community mistakenly took +the term to mean “security breaker.” + +Please don’t spread this mistake. People who break security are +“crackers.” + +### “Intellectual Property” {#intellectual-property .subheading} + +Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual +property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more +obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so +much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to +talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about +“trademarks.” + +The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the +way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy +with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property. + +When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference +between material objects and information: information can be copied and +shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can’t be. + +To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a +firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual +property.” + +The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the +World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.[(22)](#FOOT22) + +### “LAMP System” {#lamp-system .subheading} + +“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”—a common combination of +software to use on a web server, except that “Linux” in this context +really refers to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should be +“GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.” + +### “Linux System” {#linux-system .subheading} + +Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting +in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU +with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair and +confusing. Please call the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give the +GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the kernel +alone.[(23)](#FOOT23) + +### “Market” {#market .subheading} + +It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software +users in general, as a “market.” + +This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software +community. If you have a free software support business, then you have +clients, and you trade with them in a market. As long as you respect +their freedom, we wish you success in your market. + +But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, and +the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to serve +the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business away from +a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business’s efforts for +mere success is to deny the importance of freedom and legitimize +proprietary software. + +### “Monetize” {#monetize .subheading} + +The proper definition of “monetize” is “to use something as currency.” +For instance, human societies have monetized gold, silver, copper, +printed paper, special kinds of seashells, and large rocks. However, we +now see a tendency to use the word in another way, meaning “to use +something as a basis for profit.” + +That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the +profit as secondary. That attitude applied to a software project is +objectionable because it would lead the developers to make the program +proprietary, if they conclude that making it free/libre isn’t +sufficiently profitable. + +A productive and ethical business can make money, but if it subordinates +all else to profit, it is not likely to remain ethical. + +### “MP3Player” {#mp3player .subheading} + +In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state +digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not all. +Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and may +not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid these +patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not only confusing, it +also privileges the MP3 that we ought to reject. We suggest the terms +“digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” if context permits. + +### “Open” {#open .subheading} + +Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute for +“free software.” Those terms refer to a different +position[(24)](#FOOT24) based on different values. Free software is a +political movement; open source is a development model. + +When referring to the open source position, using its name is +appropriate; but please do not use it to label us or our work—that leads +people to think we share those views. + +### “PC” {#pc .subheading} + +It’s OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain kind of +computer hardware, but please don’t use it with the implication that the +computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the +same computer, it is still a PC. + +The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows. + +### “Photoshop” {#photoshop .subheading} + +Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind of +photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the +name of one particular image editing program, which should be avoided +since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs for editing +images, such as the GIMP.[(25)](#FOOT25) + +### “Piracy” {#piracy .subheading} + +Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” In +this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships +on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on +such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid +copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still +pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.) + +If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just +like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word +“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” +(or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are +available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a +positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.” + +A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.[(26)](#FOOT26) + +### “PowerPoint” {#powerpoint .subheading} + +Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind of slide +presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of one particular +proprietary program to make presentations. For your freedom’s sake, you +should use only free software to make your presentations. Recommended +options include TeX’s `beamer` class and OpenOffice.org’s Impress. + +### “Protection” {#protection .subheading} + +Publishers’ lawyers love to use the term “protection” to describe +copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing destruction +or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify with the owner +and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than with the users who +are restricted by it. + +It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms instead. For +example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a very long +time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long time.” + +Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you can say, +“covered by copyright” or just “copyrighted.” + +If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, you can use +the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say, “Copyright +restrictions last a very long time.” + +The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious features. For +instance, “copy protection” is a feature that interferes with copying. +From the user’s point of view, this is obstruction. So we could call +that malicious feature “copy obstruction.” More often it is called +Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—see the Defective by Design +campaign, at [DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org). + +### “RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)” {#rand-reasonable-and-non-discriminatory .subheading} + +Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that +prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent +licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program. They +often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,” which stands for +“reasonable and non-discriminatory.” + +That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally +neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these licenses +do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do +discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them +unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive and the other +half is prejudiced. + +Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are +discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and +non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them. Until they do so, +writers who do not wish to join in the whitewashing would do well to +reject that term. To accept and use it merely because patent-wielding +companies have made it widespread is to let those companies dictate the +views you express. + +We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or “UFO” for short, as a +replacement. It is accurate because the only condition in these licenses +is a uniform royalty fee. + +### “SaaS” or “Software as a Service” {#saas-or-software-as-a-service .subheading} + +We used to say that SaaS (short for “Software as a Service”) is an +injustice, but then we found that there was a lot of variation in +people’s understanding of which activities count as SaaS. So we switched +to a new term, “Service as a Software Substitute” or “SaaSS.” This term +has two advantages: it wasn’t used before, so our definition is the only +one, and it explains what the injustice consists of. + +See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server}) for +discussion of this issue. + +In Spanish we continue to use the term “software como servicio” because +the joke of “software como ser vicio”[(27)](#FOOT27) is too good to give +up. + +### “Sell Software” {#sell-software .subheading} + +The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a +copy of a free program for a sum of money is selling the program, and +there is nothing wrong with doing that. However, people usually +associate the term “selling software” with proprietary restrictions on +the subsequent use of the software. You can be clear, and prevent +confusion, by saying either “distributing copies of a program for a fee” +or “imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a program.” + +See “Selling Free Software” (@pageref{Selling}) for further discussion +of this issue. + +### “Sharing Economy” {#sharing-economy .subheading} + +The term “sharing economy” is not a good way to refer to services such +as Uber and Airbnb that arrange business transactions between people. We +use the term “sharing” to refer to noncommercial cooperation, including +noncommercial redistribution of exact copies of published works. +Stretching the word “sharing” to include these transactions undermines +its meaning, so we don’t use it in this context. + +A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the “piecework service +economy.” + +### “Skype” {#skype .subheading} + +Please avoid using the term “skype” as a verb, meaning any kind of video +communication or telephony over the internet in general. “Skype” is just +the name of one particular proprietary program, one that spies on its +users.[(28)](#FOOT28) If you want to make video and voice calls over the +internet in a way that respects both your freedom and your privacy, try +one of the numerous free Skype replacements, at +<https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Skype_Replacement>. + +### “Software Industry” {#software-industry .subheading} + +The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine that software +is always developed by a sort of factory and then delivered to +“consumers.” The free software community shows this is not the case. +Software businesses exist, and various businesses develop free and/or +nonfree software, but those that develop free software are not run like +factories. + +The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by advocates of software +patents. They call software development “industry” and then try to argue +that this means it should be subject to patent monopolies. The European +Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to define +“industry” as “automated production of material goods.”[(29)](#FOOT29) + +### “Source Model” {#source-model .subheading} + +Wikipedia uses the term “source model” in a confused and ambiguous way. +Ostensibly it refers to how a program’s source is distributed, but the +text confuses this with the development methodology. It distinguishes +“open source” and “shared source” as answers, but they overlap— +Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of +practices, some of which are “open source.” Thus, this term really +conveys no coherent information, but it provides an opportunity to say +“open source” in pages describing free software programs. + +### “Terminal” {#terminal .subheading} + +Mobile phones and tablets are computers, and people should be able to do +their computing on them using free software. To call them “terminals” +supposes that all they are good for is to connect to servers, which is a +bad way to do your own computing. + +### “Theft” {#theft .subheading} + +The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright often use +words like “stolen” and “theft” to refer to copyright infringement. This +is spin, but they would like you to take it for objective truth. + +Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. Laws +about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. The supporters +of repressive copyright are making an appeal to authority—and +misrepresenting what authority says.[(30)](#FOOT30) which shows what can +properly be described as “copyright theft.” + +Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many circumstances +(not all!), but being forbidden doesn’t make it wrong. In general, laws +don’t define right and wrong. Laws, at their best, attempt to implement +justice. If the laws (the implementation) don’t fit our ideas of right +and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should change. + +A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, +recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.[(31)](#FOOT31) + +### “Trusted Computing” {#trusted-computing .subheading} + +“Trusted computing” is the proponents’ name for a scheme to redesign +computers so that application developers can trust your computer to obey +them instead of you.[(32)](#FOOT32) From their point of view, it is +“trusted”; from your point of view, it is “treacherous.” + +### “Vendor” {#vendor .subheading} + +Please don’t use the term “vendor” to refer generally to anyone that +develops or packages software. Many programs are developed in order to +sell copies, and their developers are therefore their vendors; this even +includes some free software packages. However, many programs are +developed by volunteers or organizations which do not intend to sell +copies. These developers are not vendors. Likewise, only some of the +packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are vendors. We recommend the +general term “supplier” instead. + +<div class="footnote"> + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +### Footnotes + +### [(1)](#DOCF1) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free +software. @end raggedright + +### [(2)](#DOCF2) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) and “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” +(@pageref{Server}) for more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(3)](#DOCF3) + +@raggedright See “The BSD License Problem,” at +<http://gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(4)](#DOCF4) + +@raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\ +<http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>. @end raggedright + +### [(5)](#DOCF5) + +@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” +(@pageref{OS Misses Point}). @end raggedright + +### [(6)](#DOCF6) + +@raggedright See @pageref{Category Proprietary Software} for more on +proprietary software. @end raggedright + +### [(7)](#DOCF7) + +@raggedright John Harris, “Why Hackers and Spooks Want Our Heads in the +Cloud,” 25 April 2011, +[http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-\ +spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream](http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-%3Cbr%3Espooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream). +@end raggedright + +### [(8)](#DOCF8) + +@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server}) +for more on this issue. @end raggedright + +### [(9)](#DOCF9) + +@raggedright Peter Mell and Anthony Grance, “The NIST Definition of +Cloud Computing: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards +and Technology,” NIST Special Publication 800-145 (September 2011), +[http://csrc.nist.gov/\ +publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf](http://csrc.nist.gov/%3Cbr%3Epublications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf). +@end raggedright + +### [(10)](#DOCF10) + +@raggedright Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud Computing,” +26 September 2008, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html>. +@end raggedright @vglue -1pc + +### [(11)](#DOCF11) + +@raggedright See “Misinterpreting Copyright” (@pageref{Mis Cop}) for +more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(12)](#DOCF12) + +@raggedright Lara O’Reilly, “A Former Googler Has Declared War on Ad +Blockers with a New Startup That Tackles Them in an Unorthodox Way,” +18 June 2015, [http://uk.\ +businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-\ +million-series-a-funding-2015-6?r=US&IR=T](http://uk.%3Cbr%3Ebusinessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-%3Cbr%3Emillion-series-a-funding-2015-6?r=US&IR=T). +@end raggedright @vglue -1pc + +### [(13)](#DOCF13) + +@raggedright See “Free Software Is Even More Important Now” +(@pageref{More Important Now}) for more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(14)](#DOCF14) + +@raggedright Owen Hatherley, “Be a User, Not a Consumer: How Capitalism +Has Changed Our Language,” 11 August 2013, +[http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/\ +2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams](http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/%3Cbr%3E2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams). +@end raggedright @vglue -1pc + +### [(15)](#DOCF15) + +@raggedright An unedited transcript of American rock musician Courtney +Love’s 16 May 2000 speech to the Digital Hollywood online-entertainment +conference is available at <http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/>. +@end raggedright @vglue -1pc + +### [(16)](#DOCF16) + +@raggedright See @pageref{WtA IPR} for the reason why. @end raggedright + +### [(17)](#DOCF17) + +@raggedright Cory Doctorow, “Encryption Won’t Work If It Has a Back Door +Only the ‘Good Guys’ Have Keys To,” 1 May 2015, +[http://theguardian.com/technology/2015/\ +may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-\ +have-keys-to-](http://theguardian.com/technology/2015/%3Cbr%3Emay/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-%3Cbr%3Ehave-keys-to-). +@end raggedright + +### [(18)](#DOCF18) + +@raggedright See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html> for +more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(19)](#DOCF19) + +@raggedright See previous footnote. @end raggedright + +### [(20)](#DOCF20) + +@raggedright “DuckDuckGo Privacy Policy,” last modified on +11 April 2012,\ + <https://duckduckgo.com/privacy>. @end raggedright + +### [(21)](#DOCF21) + +@raggedright See my article “On Hacking,” at +<http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html>. @end raggedright @vglue +-1pc + +### [(22)](#DOCF22) + +@raggedright Richard Stallman, “Public Awareness of Copyright, WIPO, +June 2002,”\ + last updated in 2014, [http://gnu.org/philosophy/\ +wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html](http://gnu.org/philosophy/%3Cbr%3Ewipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html). +@end raggedright + +### [(23)](#DOCF23) + +@raggedright See also “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and +GNU}) for more on the history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to +this issue of naming. @end raggedright + +### [(24)](#DOCF24) + +@raggedright See “Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software” +(@pageref{OS Misses Point}) for a complete explanation. @end raggedright + +### [(25)](#DOCF25) + +@raggedright See <http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/GIMP>. @end raggedright + +### [(26)](#DOCF26) + +@raggedright Ernesto Van der Sar, “MPAA Banned from Using Piracy and +Theft Terms in Hotfile Trial,” 29 November 2013, +[http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-\ +from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129](http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-%3Cbr%3Efrom-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129). +@end raggedright + +### [(27)](#DOCF27) + +@raggedright “software, as being pernicious” (*sp.*) @end raggedright + +### [(28)](#DOCF28) + +@raggedright See +[http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html\#\ +SpywareInSkype](http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html#%3Cbr%3ESpywareInSkype) +for more on this. @end raggedright + +### [(29)](#DOCF29) + +@raggedright European Parliament, “Directive on the Patentability of +Computer-Implemented Inventions,” 24 September 2003, +[http://web.archive.org/web/\ +20071222001014/http://www.swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309](http://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20071222001014/http://www.swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309). +@end raggedright @vglue -1pc + +### [(30)](#DOCF30) + +@raggedright To refute them, you can point to the real case of Harper +Lee suing her agent for allegedly duping her into assigning him the +copyright on To Kill a Mockingbird. @end raggedright + +### [(31)](#DOCF31) + +@raggedright See footnote 25, on @pageref{Piracy}. @end raggedright + +### [(32)](#DOCF32) + +@raggedright See “Can You Trust Your Computer?” (@pageref{Can You +Trust}) 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/).\ diff --git a/docs/x.md b/docs/x.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d4fd4f --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/x.md @@ -0,0 +1,132 @@ +--- +Generator: 'texi2html 1.82' +description: Untitled Document +distribution: global +keywords: Untitled Document +resource-type: document +title: Untitled Document +... + +1. The X Window System Trap {#the-x-window-system-trap .chapter} +=========================== + +@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2009 Richard Stallman\ + {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1998. This +version is part of @fsfsthreecite} To copyleft or not to copyleft? That +is one of the major controversies in the free software community. The +idea of copyleft is that we should fight fire with fire—that we should +use copyright to make sure our code stays free. The GNU General Public +License (GNU GPL) is one example of a copyleft license. + +Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution. +Noncopyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on +the idea of never saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to +use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft +licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively +protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we +need copyleft. + +For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft. It +exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software +developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by +suggesting that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through its +rule that copylefted software could not be in the X Distribution. + +Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their +conception of success. The X Consortium defined success as +popularity—specifically, getting computer companies to use the X Window +System. This definition put the computer companies in the driver’s seat: +whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help them get it. + +Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted +free software developers to donate their work for such use. If they had +asked for this directly, people would have laughed. But the X +Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as an +unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software +developers,” they said, suggesting that this is a noble form of +self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,” they said, suggesting +that it was not even a sacrifice. + +But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that +copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community, is +sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium’s +request entrusted the community’s future to the goodwill of the X +Consortium. + +This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a plan +to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it would not be free +software. They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary +software developers, but to our community as well. + +There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you +not to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license +and restrict its version of your program, along with the code for the +core of X. + +The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down and +transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now +carrying out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them to +release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned +restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They were +firmly against staying with the old X11 distribution terms.) Before they +said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed for another +reason: the XFree86 group followed the X Consortium’s old policy, and +will not accept copylefted software. + +In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with +nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and +rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that was +used for X11R6.3. Thus, the Open Group therefore eventually did what was +right, but that does not alter the general issue. + +Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to +restrict X, someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software is +vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree version +dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add significantly +important features using proprietary code. Users who choose software +based on technical characteristics, rather than on freedom, could easily +be lured to the nonfree version for short-term convenience. + +The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by +saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide to +copyleft your X-related software. + +When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib, +and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The X.org group +does an important job for the community in maintaining these programs, +and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm +done by a fork in development. So it is better to work with them, and +not copyleft our changes on these programs. Likewise for utilities such +as `xset` and `xrdb`, which are close to the core of X and do not need +major improvements. At least we know that the X.org group has a firm +commitment to developing these programs as free software. + +The issue is different for programs outside the core of X: applications, +window managers, and additional libraries and widgets. There is no +reason not to copyleft them, and we should copyleft them. + +In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for inclusion +in the X distributions, the GNU Project will undertake to publicize +copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to copyleft +something, and you worry that its omission from the X distribution will +impede its popularity, please ask us to help. + +At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for +popularity. When a businessman tempts you with “more popularity,” he may +try to convince you that his use of your program is crucial to its +success. Don’t believe it! If your program is good, it will find many +users anyway; you don’t need to feel desperate for any particular users, +and you will be stronger if you do not. You can get an indescribable +sense of joy and freedom by responding, “Take it or leave it—that’s no +skin off my back.” Often the businessman will turn around and accept the +program with copyleft, once you call the bluff. + +Friends, free software developers, don’t repeat old mistakes! If we do +not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone +equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend +freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using +[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\ |