[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html f...
|
From: |
Karl Berry |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html f... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:19:28 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Karl Berry <karl> 07/03/08 22:19:28
Modified files:
philosophy : free-software-for-freedom.html free-sw.html
linux-gnu-freedom.html shouldbefree.html
why-free.html
Log message:
add anchors, from leslie polzer (ticket 330678)
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.28&r2=1.29
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.55&r2=1.56
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.23&r2=1.24
Patches:
Index: free-software-for-freedom.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html,v
retrieving revision 1.28
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -b -r1.28 -r1.29
--- free-software-for-freedom.html 7 Feb 2007 21:19:33 -0000 1.28
+++ free-software-for-freedom.html 8 Mar 2007 22:19:23 -0000 1.29
@@ -97,13 +97,13 @@
work we have done, and the software we have developed--such as the
<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating system.</p>
-<h4>Comparing the two terms</h4>
+<h4 id="comparison">Comparing the two terms</h4>
<p>
This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software”
and
“open source”. It shows why the term “open source”
does not solve
any problems, and in fact creates some.</p>
-<h4>Ambiguity</h4>
+<h4 id="comparison">Ambiguity</h4>
<p>
The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: an unintended
meaning, “Software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
meaning of “open source” and show clearly why the natural
definition
is the wrong one.</p>
-<h4>Fear of Freedom</h4>
+<h4 id="fear">Fear of Freedom</h4>
<p>
The main argument for the term “open source software” is that
“free
software” makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/07 21:19:33 $ $Author: mattl $
+$Date: 2007/03/08 22:19:23 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: free-sw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.55
retrieving revision 1.56
diff -u -b -r1.55 -r1.56
--- free-sw.html 7 Feb 2007 02:35:32 -0000 1.55
+++ free-sw.html 8 Mar 2007 22:19:23 -0000 1.56
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
and avoid various practical problems.
</p>
-<h2>Open Source?</h2>
+<h2 id="open-source">Open Source?</h2>
<p>
Another group has started using the term <q>open source</q> to mean
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/02/07 02:35:32 $ $Author: mattl $
+$Date: 2007/03/08 22:19:23 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: linux-gnu-freedom.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- linux-gnu-freedom.html 24 Feb 2007 22:11:04 -0000 1.19
+++ linux-gnu-freedom.html 8 Mar 2007 22:19:23 -0000 1.20
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
the non-free version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd
like to address that issue as well.</p>
-<h3>Bitkeeper issue</h3>
+<h3 id="bitkeeper">Bitkeeper issue</h3>
<p>
The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the
free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
- $Date: 2007/02/24 22:11:04 $ $Author: tuijldert $
+ $Date: 2007/03/08 22:19:23 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: shouldbefree.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- shouldbefree.html 26 Nov 2006 18:52:39 -0000 1.20
+++ shouldbefree.html 8 Mar 2007 22:19:23 -0000 1.21
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
</p>
<HR>
-<h3>Introduction</h3>
+<h3 id="introduction">Introduction</h3>
<p>
The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free” software</a>.<a
href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
-<h3>How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
+<h3 id="owner-justification">How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
<p>
Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@
have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
vs. no software is begging the question.</p>
-<h3>The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
+<h3 id="against-having-owners">The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
<p>
The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked
with having owners to restrict the use of it?”</p>
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@
way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to
the extent actually necessary) funding software development.</p>
-<h4>The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4>
+<h4 id="harm-done">The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4>
<p>
Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@
However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.</p>
-<h4>Obstructing Use of Programs</h4>
+<h4 id="obstructing-use">Obstructing Use of Programs</h4>
<p>
The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy
of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@
cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
of the waste caused by having owners.</p>
-<h4>Damaging Social Cohesion</h4>
+<h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion">Damaging Social Cohesion</h4>
<p>
Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@
for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
expense of the latter.</p>
-<h4>Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs</h4>
+<h4 id="custom-adaptation">Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs</h4>
<p>
The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@
new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get
around to you in about two years.”</p>
-<h4>Obstructing Software Development</h4>
+<h4 id="software-development">Obstructing Software Development</h4>
<p>
The third level of material harm affects software development.
Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a person
@@ -463,7 +463,7 @@
certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
programs reported on is usually secret.</p>
-<h4>It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted</h4>
+<h4 id="does-not-matter-how">It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted</h4>
<p>
I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying,
changing, and building on a program. I have not specified how this
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@
I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
objective.</p>
-<h4>Software Should be Free</h4>
+<h4 id="should-be-free">Software Should be Free</h4>
<p>
I have shown how ownership of a program--the power to restrict
changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@
making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
terms, but it is not what is good for society.</p>
-<h3>Why People Will Develop Software</h3>
+<h3 id="why-develop">Why People Will Develop Software</h3>
<p>
If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging
people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
@@ -503,7 +503,7 @@
for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.</p>
-<h4>Programming is Fun</h4>
+<h4 id="fun">Programming is Fun</h4>
<p>
There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@
question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a
fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p>
-<h4>Funding Free Software</h4>
+<h4 id="funding">Funding Free Software</h4>
<p>
Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
Many other institutions already exist that can do this.</p>
@@ -615,7 +615,7 @@
fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one
will want to program.</p>
-<h4>What Do Users Owe to Developers?</h4>
+<h4 id="owe">What Do Users Owe to Developers?</h4>
<p>
There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software
@@ -636,7 +636,7 @@
developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
radio and television stations.</p>
-<h3>What Is Software Productivity? </h3>
+<h3 id="productivity">What Is Software Productivity? </h3>
<p>
If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?</p>
@@ -671,7 +671,7 @@
second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult
technological advances.</p>
-<h3>Is Competition Inevitable?</h3>
+<h3 id="competition">Is Competition Inevitable?</h3>
<p>
Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
@@ -713,7 +713,7 @@
prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
equivalent of factional civil war.</p>
-<h3>“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3>
+<h3 id="communism">“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3>
<p>
In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
@@ -744,7 +744,7 @@
Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.</p>
-<h3>The Question of Premises</h3>
+<h3 id="premises">The Question of Premises</h3>
<p>
I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other
@@ -785,7 +785,7 @@
awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.</p>
-<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3>
<p>
We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
@@ -809,7 +809,7 @@
efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.</p>
-<h3>Footnotes</h3>
+<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
<ol>
<li> <a id="f1"> The word “free” in “free software”
refers to
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/11/26 18:52:39 $ $Author: karl $
+$Date: 2007/03/08 22:19:23 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: why-free.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- why-free.html 16 Nov 2006 16:06:39 -0000 1.23
+++ why-free.html 8 Mar 2007 22:19:23 -0000 1.24
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@
<ul>
-<li>Name calling.
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
<p>
Owners use smear words such as ``piracy'' and ``theft'', as well as expert
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But the owners
ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
-<li>Exaggeration.
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
<p>
Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every
one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it
kindly.</p></li>
-<li>The law.
+<li id="law">The law.
<p>
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
-<li>Natural rights.
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
<p>
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@
into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be
justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
-<li>Economics.
+<li id="economics">Economics.
<p>
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
@@ -415,7 +415,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/11/16 16:06:39 $ $Author: yavor $
+$Date: 2007/03/08 22:19:23 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy free-software-for-freedom.html f...,
Karl Berry <=