[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/gnu .symlinks thegnuproject.bs.html the-gnu...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/gnu .symlinks thegnuproject.bs.html the-gnu... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:11:19 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 07/03/24 09:11:19
Modified files:
gnu : .symlinks
Added files:
gnu : thegnuproject.bs.html
Removed files:
gnu : the-gnu-project.bs.html
Log message:
Renamed the-gnu-project.bs.html to thegnuproject.bs.html, the CVS
history is not worth to keep it under the old name.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/.symlinks?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.bs.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/the-gnu-project.bs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=0
Patches:
Index: .symlinks
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/.symlinks,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- .symlinks 24 Mar 2007 08:19:03 -0000 1.12
+++ .symlinks 24 Mar 2007 09:11:13 -0000 1.13
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
gnu.html index.html
thegnuproject.html the-gnu-project.html
-thegnuproject.bs.html the-gnu-project.bs.html
thegnuproject.es.html the-gnu-project.es.html
thegnuproject.ko.html the-gnu-project.ko.html
gnu-user-groups.pl.html gnu-linux-user-groups.pl.html
Index: thegnuproject.bs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: thegnuproject.bs.html
diff -N thegnuproject.bs.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ thegnuproject.bs.html 24 Mar 2007 09:11:13 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1627 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
+
+<html>
+
+
+
+<head>
+
+<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
+
+<title>GNU Projekat - Fondacija za slobodan software (FSF)</title>
+
+<link REV="made" HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+<meta HTML-EQUIV="Keywords"
+
+CONTENT="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation,
+
+ History">
+
+</head>
+
+
+
+<body BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
+
+
+
+<h3>GNU Projekat</h3>
+
+
+
+<p><a HREF="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+
+
+<p>originalno izdano u knjizi "<i>Open Sources</i>" </p>
+
+
+
+<p><img SRC="http://www.gnu.org/graphics/whats-gnu-sm.jpg"; ALT=" [slika Sta je
GNU] ">
+ [Albanski | <a href="the-gnu-project.bs.html"> Bosanski</a> | Katalonski |
Kineski(Obicni) | Kineski(Tradicionalni) |
+Hrvatski | <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.cs.html";> Èeski</a> |
Danski | Njemaèki |
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html";>Engleski</a> | <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.fr.html";> Francuski</a> |
Grèki | Bugarski |
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.id.html";> Indonezijski</a> |
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.it.html";> Talijanski</a> |
Japanski
+| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.ko.html";> Korejski</a> |
Norve¹ki | Rumunski | Portugalski | Romski
+| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.ru.html";>Ruski</a> | Srpski
| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.es.html";> ©panski</a> |
©vedski
+| Èai | Turski | Vijetnamski] </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Prva software-sharing zajednica</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Kada sam poèeo raditi u MIT Laboratoriju umjetne inteligencije 1971-e,
postao sam dio
+
+software-sharing zajednice koja je postojala mnogo godina. Dijeljenje
software-a nije bilo
+
+ogranièeno samo na na¹u zajednicu; ono je staro koliko i kompjuteri, kao ¹to je
+
+dijeljenje recepata staro koliko i kuhanje. Ali mi smo to radili vi¹e nego
drugi. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>AI Lab (laboratorij um.int. op.prev.) je koristio timesharing operativni
sistem zvani ITS
+
+(the Incompatible Timesharing System) kojeg su hackeri (1) laboratorijskog
osoblja
+
+dizajnirali i napisali u asemblerskom jeziku za Digital PDP-10, jedan od
velikih kompjutera tog
+
+vremena. Kao èlan ove zajednice, AI Lab sistemski hacker, moj je posao bio da
pobolj¹am
+
+sistem. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Na¹ software nismo nazvali "slobodan software", jer taj pojam jo¹
nije ni
+
+postojao; ali je to u stvari bilo to. Kadgod su ljudi s drugih univerziteta
ili kompanija
+
+htjeli da portaju i koriste program, drage volje smo im dopustili. Ako ste
vidjeli nekoga
+
+da koristi nepoznat i interesantan program, uvijek ste mogli tra¾iti da vidite
source
+
+kod, da bi ga proèitali, promijenili, ili otkinuli dijelove da bi napravili
novi program.
+
+</p>
+
+
+
+<p>(1) Kori¹tenje rijeèi "hacker" u smislu "provala
sigurnosti" je
+
+zbunjujuæa za dijelove masovnih medija. Mi hackeri odbijamo da prihvatimo to
znaèenje,
+
+te nastavljamo koristiti rijeè u znaèenju "Neko ko voli programiranje i
u¾iva pametovati o tome". </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Raspad zajednice</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Situacija se drastièno promijenila ranih 80-tih kada je Digital ugasio
PDP-10 seriju.
+
+Njegova arhitektura, elegantna i moæna u 60-tim, nije se mogla pro¹iriti na
+
+veæi adresni prostor koji je postao dostupan u 80-tim. Ovo je znaèilo da su
+
+skoro svi programi koji su saèinjavali ITS postali zastarjeli. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Zajednica AI lab hackera se veæ raspala, nedugo prije. 1981., kompanija
+
+Symbolics je zaposlila gotovo sve hackere iz AI lab-a, te se tako razrijeðena
zajednica
+
+nije mogla uzdr¾avati. (knjiga <i>Hackers</i> autora Steve Levy-a opisuje
dogadjaje, te
+
+daje èistu sliku ove zajednice u svom vrhuncu.) Kada je AI lab kupio novi
PDP-10
+
+1982.-e, njegovi administratori su odluèili da koriste Digitalove
<i>timesharing</i>
+
+sisteme, koji nisu bili besplatni, umjesto ITS-a. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Moderni kompjuteri ove ere, kao VAX ili 68020, su imali sopstvene
operativne sisteme, ali
+
+nijedan od njih nije bio slobodan software: morali ste potpisati ugovor o
¹utnji (<i>nondisclosure
+
+agreement</i> - ugovor po kojemu niste smjeli odavati nikakve podatke o
proizvodu po.a.)
+
+da biste dobili izvr¹nu (.exe) kopiju. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ovo je znaèilo da je prvi korak u kori¹tenju kompjutera bio da se obeæa da
ne smijete
+
+pomoæi kom¹iji. Kooperativna zajednica je bila zabranjena. Pravilo vlasnika
+
+posjedovanog software-a bilo je, "Ako ga podijelite sa susjedom, onda ste
pirat. Ako
+
+¾elite ikakve promjene, molite nas da ih napravimo." </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ideja da je dru¹tveni sistem posjedovanog software-a--sistem koji ka¾e da
nije dozvoljeno dijeliti ili mijenjati
+
+software-- da je taj sistem anti-dru¹tven, neetièan, jednostavno pogre¹an,
mo¾e biti iznenaðenje za neke
+
+èitatelje. Ali ¹ta drugo mo¾emo reæi o sistemu baziranom na podjeli javnosti i
dr¾anju
+
+korisnika bespomoænim? Èitatelji koje ideja iznenadi su vjerojatno uzeli
+
+posjedovani software 'zdravo za gotovo', ili ga sude na principima koji
vrijede u
+
+biznisu posjedovanog software-a. Izdavaèi software-a su dugo radili da ubijede
ljude da
+
+je samo jedan naèin gledanja na ovo pitanje. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Kada izdavaèi software-a govore o "nametanju" svojih
"prava", ono
+
+¹to zaista *ka¾u* je sekundarno. Prava poruka ovih tvrdnji su neizreèene
pretpostavke
+
+koje uzimaju za pravo; javnost treba da ih prihvati bez kritike. Hajdemo ih
ispitati. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Jedna pretpostavka je da software kompanije imaju bezupitno pravo da
posjeduju software
+
+te stoga imaju moæ nad svim korisnicima. (Ako postoji prirodno pravo, bez
obzira koliko
+
+¹teti javnosti, ne smijemo prigovoriti.) Zanimljivo je da Ustav SAD-a i pravna
tradicija
+
+odbacuju ovaj stav; copyright nije prirodno pravo, nego umjetni monopol
nametnut od vlade
+
+koji ogranièava korisnike u namjeri da kopiraju. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Jo¹ jedna neizreèena pretpostavka je da je jedina va¾na stvar za software
ta ¹to
+
+vam omoguèava da uradite--da mi korisnici kompjutera ne bi smjeli mariti kakvu
vrstu
+
+dru¹tva smijemo imati. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Treæa pretpostavka je da ne bi imali korisnog software-a (ili nikada ne bi
imali
+
+program koji æe uraditi ovo ili ono) da nismo dali kompaniji moæ nad
korisnicima
+
+programa. Ove pretpostavke su mogle zvuèati vjerojatne, prije nego ¹to je
pokret
+
+slobodnog software-a demonstrirao da mo¾emo imati gomilu korisnih programa a
da ga ne
+
+stavljamo u lance. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ako odbijemo da prihvatimo ove pretpostavke, te sudimo ove stvari na
temelju zdravog
+
+razuma pri æemu na prvo mjesto stvaljamo korisnike, doæi æemo do razlièitih
+
+zakljuèaka. Korisnici kompjutera bi trebali biti slobodni da mijenjaju
programe za
+
+vlastite potrebe, jer je pomaganje drugima osnova drustva. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ovdje nema mjesta za op¹irne izjave o razlozima ovog stava, te ¾elim
usmjeriti
+
+èitatelja na web stranicu <a
HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html";>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html</a>.
+
+</p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Nepopustljiv moralni izbor.</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Sa odlaskom moje zajednice, nije bilo moguæe nastaviti kao prije. Umjesto
toga muèio
+
+me nepopustljiv moralni izbor. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Jednostavniji izbor bi bio da se pridru¾im svijetu posjedovanog software-a,
+
+potpisujuæi ugovor o ¹utnji i obeæavajuæi da neæu pomagati svojim prijateljima
+
+hackerima. najvjerojatnije bih i ja programirao software koji se prodavao pod
ugovorom o
+
+¹utnji, i prema tome èinio pritiske na druge ljude da izdaju svoje prijatelje.
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Na ovaj naèin bih zaradio, te se mo¾da zabavljao pi¹uæi kod. Ali znao sam
da bih se
+
+na kraju karijere osvrnuo i vidio sve godine kroz koje sam pravio zidove meðu
ljudima, te
+
+bih osjeæao da sam proveo ¾ivot èineæi svijet gorim mjestom. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Veæ sam bio do¾ivio da budem na kraju ugovora o ¹utnji, kada je neto odbio
da daa
+
+meni i MIT AI lab-u source kod od kontrolnog programa za pisaæ. (Manjak nekih
stvari u
+
+programu je èinilo kori¹tenje printera frustrirajuæim.) Stoga nisam sebi mogao
reæi da
+
+su ugovori o ¹utnji nedu¾ni. Bio sam bijesan kada je odbio da ga podijeli sa
nama; nisam
+
+se mogao okrenuti i uraditi to isto svima drugima. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Drugi izbor, otvoren ali neugodan, je bio da napustim polje raèunarstva. Na
taj naèin
+
+moje sposobnosti ne bi bile zloupotrijebljene, ali bi i dalje bile
neiskoristene. Ne bih
+
+bio kri za podjelu i ogranièenja korisnika kompjutera, ali bi se to ipak
dogodilo. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Stoga sam potra¾io naèin na koji bi programer mogao uèiniti ne¹to dobro.
Upitao sam
+
+se, da li postoji program ili programi koje bih mogao napisati da bih jo¹
jednom
+
+zajednicu uèinio moguæom. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Odgovor je bio jednostavan: prvo ¹to sam trebao je operativni sistem. To je
osnovni
+
+software koji trebate imati da bi poèeli koristiti kompjuter. S operativnim
sistemom,
+
+mo¾ete mnogo toga uraditi; bez njega, ne mo¾ete ni pokrenuti kompjuter. S
slobodnim
+
+operativnim sistemom bismo ponovo mogli imati zajednicu kooperativnih
hackera--i pozvati
+
+svakoga da nam se pridru¾i. I svako bi mogao koristiti kompjuter a da ne mora
¹pijunirati
+
+svoje prijatelje. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Kao programer operativnog sistema, imao sam prave vje¹tine za posao. Pa
iako nisam
+
+mogao za to mogao uzeti zaslugu, shvatio sam da sam izabran za taj posao.
Izabrao sam da
+
+napravim operativni sistem kompatibilan Unix-u da bi bio portabilan, te da bi
se Unix
+
+korisnici mogli lagano prebaciti na njega. Ime GNU je izabrano koristeci
hackersku
+
+tradiciju, rekurzivni akronim za "GNU nije Unix (GNU's Not Unix)".
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Operativni sistem se ne sastoji samo od kernela, koji jedva da mo¾e
pokrenuti druge
+
+programe. U 1970-tim svaki operativni sistem vrijedan pomena se satojao od
procesora,
+
+asemblera, kompajlera, interpretatora, debagera, tekst editora, mailers-a, i
jo¹ mnogo
+
+toga. ITS ih je imao, Multics takoðer, VMS ih je imao, te ih je imao i Unix.
GNU OS ih je
+
+takoðer trebao imati. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Kasnije sam èuo ove rijeèi, pripisane Hillel (1): </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ako nisam za sebe, ko æe biti za mene?<br>
+
+Ako sam samo za sebe, ¹ta sam ja?<br>
+
+Ako ne sada, kada? </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Odluka o osnivanju GNU projekta je bila bazirana na sliènoj ideji. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>(1) Kao ateista ne slijedim niti jednog religijskog vodju, ali ponekad
naðem ne¹to
+
+¹to je neko od njih rekao. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Slobodan kao u slobodi (*)</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Izraz 'slobodan software' se ponekad pokre¹no protumaèi--on nema ni¹ta sa
cijenom.
+
+Radi se o slobodi. Stoga definicija je slobodnog software-a: program je
slobodan
+
+software za vas, opæenito, ako:
+
+
+
+<ul>
+
+ <li>Imate pravo da koristite program iz bilo kojeg razloga</li>
+
+ <li>Imate da prilagoðavate program va¹im potrebama. (morate imati pristup
source kodu)</li>
+
+ <li>Imate pravo redistribuirati kopije besplatno ili uz naplatu</li>
+
+ <li>Imate pravo distribuirati modificirane verzije programa, tako da
zajednica mo¾e imati
+
+ koristi od va¹ih prepravki</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+
+
+<p>Po¹to se 'slobodan' odnosi na slobodu, a ne na cijenu, nema suprotnosti
izmeðu
+
+prodavanja kopija i slobodnog software-a. U stvari, pravo prodaje kopija je
osnovno:
+
+kolekcioniranje slobodnog software-a koji se prodaje na CD-ROM-ovima je va¾no
za
+
+zajednicu i njihovom prodajom se prikuplja novac za razvoj slobodnog
software-a. Zbog
+
+toga program koji ljudi nisu slobodni da uvrste u ove kolekcije nije slobodan
software. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Zbog dvosmislenosti pojma 'slobodan', ljudi su dugo trazili alternative,
ali niko nije
+
+prona¹ao prikladnu alternativu. Engleski jezik ima vi¹e rijeèi i nijansi od
bilo kojeg
+
+drugog jezika, ali mu manjka jednostavna, nedvosmislena, rijeè koja znaèi
'slobodan' kao
+
+u rijeèi sloboda--'nesputan' je rijeè koja ima najbli¾e znaèenje, Alternative
kao
+
+'osloboðen', 'sloboda' i 'otvoren' imaju ili pogre¹no znaèenje ili neke druge
+
+nedostatke. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>(*) <i>rijec 'free' u engleskom ima dva znaèenja: besplatan i slobodan, te
se zbog
+
+toga i koriste u sliènom znaèenju u frazi 'free software'. op.prev.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<h3>GNU software i GNU sistem</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Razvoj èitavog sistema je veoma velik projekat. Da bi ga doveli nadohvat
ruke,
+
+odluèio sam da prilagodim i koristim postojeæe dijelove slobodnog software-a
gdje je
+
+god to bilo moguæe. Na primjer, na samom poèetku sam odluèio da koristim TeX
kao
+
+osnovni tekst formater; nekoliko godina kasnije sam odluèio da radije koristim
X Windows
+
+sistem nego da pi¹em jos jedan window sistem za GNU. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Zbog ove odluke GNU sistem nije isto kao kolekcija svog GNU software-a. GNU
sistem
+
+ukljuèuje programe koji nisu GNU software, programe koje su programirali drugi
ljudi i
+
+projekti za njihove potrebe, ali koje mo¾emo koristiti jer su slobodan
software. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Poèetak projekta</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>U januaru 1984. sam prekinuo posao u MIT-u i poèeo pisati GNU software.
Napu¹tanje
+
+MIT-a je bilo neophodno da se on ne bi upletao u distribuciju GNU-a kao
slobodnog
+
+software-a. Da sam ostao kao èlan osoblja, MIT je mogao tra¾iti vlasnièko
pravo nad
+
+software-om, te je mogao iznuditi svoje vlastite uvjete distribuiranja, ili
èak ga
+
+preokrenuti u posjedovani software. Nisam imao namjeru toliko mnogo uraditi da
bih vidio
+
+kako postaje beskoristan u svoj prvotnoj namjeri: stvaranju nove zajednice
koja bi
+
+dijelila software. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Meðutim, profesor Winston, tada¹nji sef MIT AI Lab-a, me ljubazno pozvao da
koristim
+
+laboratorijske prostorije. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Prvi koraci</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Nedugo prije poèinjanja GNU projekta, èuo sam za <i>Free University
Compiler Kit
+
+(besplatni univerzitetski kompajlerski paket)</i>, takoðer poznat kao VUCK.
(nizozemska
+
+rijec za 'besplatan' se pi¹e sa V). Ovo je bio kompajler dizajniran da radi s
vi¹e
+
+jezika, ukljuèujuæi C i Pascal, i da podr¾ava mnogostruke target ma¹ine. Pitao
sam
+
+autora smije li ga GNU koristiti. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Odgovorio je prezirno da je univerzitet besplatan ali kompajler nije. Stoga
sam
+
+odluèio da moj prvi program za GNU projekat mora biti multi-jezièni,
multi-platformski
+
+kompajler. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Nadajuæi se da æu izbjeæi pisanje cijelog kompajlera, nabavio sam source
kod Pastel
+
+kompajlera, koji je bio multi-platformski kompajler programiran u Lawrence
Livermore
+
+Lab-u. Podr¾avao je, i bio pisan u njemu, produ¾enu verziju Pascala dizajniran
da bude
+
+sistem-programski jezik. Dodao sam prednji dio u C-u i poèeo portovanje na
Motorola 68000
+
+kompjuter. Ali sam morao odustati kada sam otkrio da kompajler treba vi¹e
megabajta <i>stack
+
+space-a</i>, dok je 68000 Unix sistem dozvoljavao samo 64k. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Tada sam shvatio da paster kompajler funkcionira tako da dijeli èitav input
file u
+
+sintax tree, konvertira cijeli syntax tree u lanac 'instrukcija', te zatim
generira cijeli
+
+output file, a da nikada ne prazni nikakav <i>storage</i>. Novi kompajler je
danas znan
+
+kao GCC; ni¹ta od Pastel kompajlera se ne koristi u njemu, ali sam uspio da
prilagodim i
+
+koristim prednji dio pisan u C-u i zadnji dio pisan u C-u koji sam napisao.
Ali to je bilo
+
+nekoliko godina kasnije; prvo sam radio na GNU Emacs-u. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>GNU Emacs</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>U septembru 1984. sam poèeo raditi na Emacs-u, te se poèetkom 1985. mogao
koristiti.
+
+Ovo mi je omoguèilo da poènem koristiti Unix sisteme za editovanje; nije me
interesiralo
+
+da nauèim koristiti vi ili ed, pa sam do tada vr¹io editovanja na drugim
masinama. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>U tom trenutku su ljudi poèeli iskazivati ¾elju da koriste GNU Emacs, ¹to je
+
+stvorilo pitanje kako ga distribuirati. Naravno, stavio sam ga na anonymous
ftp server na
+
+MIT kompjuteru koje sam koristio. (Ovaj kompjuter, prep.ai.mit.edu, je prema
tome postao
+
+osnovni GNU ftp site za distribuciju; kada je uga¹en nekoliko godina kasnije,
prenijeli
+
+smo ime na na¹ novi ftp server.) Ali u to vrijeme veèina zainteresiranih ljudi
nije bila
+
+na Internetu i nije mogla dobiti kopiju preko ftp-a. Stoga se postavilo
pitanje, ¹ta da
+
+im ka¾em? </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Mogao sam reæi, "Naði prijatelja koji ima pristup internetu i koji æe
ti
+
+napraviti kopiju." Ili sam mogao uraditi ono ¹to sam radio s originalnim
PDP-10
+
+Emacs-om: reæi im, "Po¹alji mi traku i SASE, i ja æu ti sve to poslati sa
+
+snimljenim Emacs-om." Ali nisam imao posao, i tra¾io sam nacina da
zaradim od
+
+slobodnog software-a. Stoga sam objavio da cu svakom poslati traku za $150. Na
ovaj
+
+naèin sam zapoèeo distribuciju slobodnog software-a, preteæi kompanijama koje
danas
+
+distribuiraju cijeli GNU sistem baziran na Linux-u. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Da li je program slobodan za svakoga korisnika?</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Ako je program slobodan software i kada napusti ruke autora, ne znaèi da æe
biti
+
+slobodan za svakoga ko ima kopiju. Na primjer, software u public domainu
(software koji
+
+nije pod copyright-om) je besplatan; ali svako mo¾e napraviti posjedovanu
modificiranu
+
+verziju. Na isti naèin, mnogi slobodni programi su pod copyright-om, ali se
+
+distribuiraju pod jednostavnim dopu¹tajuæim licencama koje dozvoljavaju
posjedovane
+
+modificirane verzije. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Paradigmatski primjer ovog problema je X Windows sistem razvijen u MIT-u, i
objavljen
+
+kao slobodan software s dopu¹tajuæom licencom, kojeg su ubrzo prihvatile razne
+
+kompjuterske kompanije. Dodali su X-e svojim posjedovanim Unix sistemima, samo
u binarnoj
+
+formi, te stavili pod isti ugovor o ¹utnji. Ove kopije X-a nisu ni¹ta vi¹e
slobodne
+
+nego ¹to je Unix. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Programeri X Windows-a nisu razmatrali ovaj problem--oèekivali su i ¾eljeli
da se ovo
+
+dogodi. Njihov cilj nije bila sloboda, nego uspjeh, definiran kao 'imati mnogo
korisnika'.
+
+Nije ih zanimalo da li æe ovi korisnici imati slobodu, samo da budu
mnogobrojni. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ovo nas je dovelo do paradoksalne situacije gdje su dva razlicita naèina
raèunanja na
+
+kolièinu slobode dovela do razlièitih odgovora na pitanje 'Da li je program
slobodan?'.
+
+Ako sudite na temelju slobode koju daju MIT uvjeti distribuiranja, rekli biste
da su X-i
+
+slobodan software. Ali ako mjerite slobodu obiènog korisika X-a, rekli biste
da je
+
+posjedovani software. Veæina X korisnika je koristila posjedovanu verziju koja
je do¹la s
+
+Unix sistemima, a ne slobodnu. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Copyleft i GNU GPL</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Cilj GNU-a je bio da korisnicima pru¾i slobodu, a ne da samo bude
popularan. Stoga
+
+trebamo koristiti uvjete distribuiranja koji bi sprijeèili da se GNU software
pretvori u
+
+posjedovani software. Metoda koju koristimo se zove "copyleft". (1)
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Copyleft koristi copyright zakon, ali dopusta da bude u suprotnosti s
osnovnom
+
+namjerom: umjesto sa bude sredstvo privatiziranja software-a, ono postaje
sredstvo koje se
+
+brine da software bude slobodan. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Osnovna ideja copyleft-a je da svakome damo dozvolu da koristi program,
kopira ga,
+
+modificira, te distribuira modificirane verzije--ali da ne dozoli da stavljaju
+
+ogranièenja. Prema tome, glavne slobode koje definiraju "slobodan
software" su
+
+garantirane svakom ko ima kopiju; one postaju neotuðiva prava. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>---------------------------- <br>
+
+Tekst ispod jo¹ nije preveden.</p>
+
+
+
+<p> </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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." </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code. Such a
+
+combination would inevitably be non-free; whichever freedoms are lacking for
the non-free
+
+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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>(1) 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>The Free Software Foundation</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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, 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from
sales--of copies
+
+of free software, and of other related services. Today it sells CD-ROMs of
source code,
+
+CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals (all with freedom to
redistribute and
+
+modify), and Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of
software for
+
+your choice of platform). </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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(1), which was
developed by
+
+FSF employee Brian Fox. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>(1) "Bourne again Shell" is a joke on the name ``Bourne Shell'',
which was
+
+the usual shell on Unix. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Free software support</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Watch out, though--a number of companies that associate themselves with the
term
+
+"open source" actually base their business on non-free 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
"value
+
+added", which reflects the values they would like us to adopt:
convenience above
+
+freedom. If we value freedom more, we should call them "freedom
subtracted"
+
+products. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Technical goals</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>The principal goal of GNU was 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
counterparts in
+
+reliability and speed. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Donated computers</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 free
replacement that
+
+would help others stop using the proprietary package. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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.
+
+</p>
+
+
+
+<h3>The GNU Task List</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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 added various other
useful
+
+software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly complete system
ought to
+
+have. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Today, hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU task list--those jobs
have 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>The GNU Library GPL</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU Library
General Public
+
+License, which gives permission to link proprietary software with the library.
Why make
+
+this exception? </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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.
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Scratching an itch?</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Eric Raymond says that "Every good work of software starts by
scratching a
+
+developer's personal itch." 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
needs a C
+
+library, the Bourne-Again Shell (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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 non-free
encryption
+
+software, because users should not have to choose between privacy and freedom.
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Unexpected developments</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>The GNU Hurd</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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 (or ``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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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
+
+multi-threaded 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Alix</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Ultimately, 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name
Alix in the
+
+HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the name did its job. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Linux and GNU/Linux</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use. Fortunately, another kernel
is available.
+
+In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a Unix-compatible kernel and called it
Linux. Around
+
+1992, 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
combination of
+
+the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Challenges in our future</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>The following four sections discuss these challenges. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Secret hardware</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Hardware manufactures 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 non-free 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Non-free libraries</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>A non-free 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
<strong>run</strong>
+
+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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called Qt, was
used in a
+
+substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: GNOME and
Harmony. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 non-free software.
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it possible
to run KDE
+
+software without using Qt. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 non-free. (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains
desirable to
+
+avoid using Qt.) </p>
+
+
+
+<p>How will we respond to the next tempting non-free 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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Software patents</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed
audio was
+
+removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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? </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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 techically 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 "cathedral" model of development, and the
reliability and
+
+power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about
freedom and
+
+principle. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Free documentation</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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, on-line and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy
of the
+
+program. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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
+
+does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, does not
fill our
+
+community's needs. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
produce a full
+
+spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends on philosophy. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>We must talk about freedom</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>"Open Source"</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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? </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>"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. </p>
+
+
+
+<h3>Try!</h3>
+
+
+
+<p>Yoda's philosophy ("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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>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. </p>
+
+
+
+<hr>
+
+
+
+<p>Vratite se na <a HREF="../home.bs.html">GNU home page</a>. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Sva pitanja za FSF & GNU ¹aljite na <a
HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+
+Drugi <a HREF="../home.bs.html#ContactInfo">naèin da kontaktirate</a> FSF. </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Sve komentare i pitanja ¹aljite na <a
HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>,
+
+a sva druga na <a HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
+
+
+
+<p>Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin
St - Suite
+
+330, Boston, MA 02110, USA </p>
+
+
+
+<p>Kopiranje i distribucija èitavog èlanka je dozvoljena u svakom pogledu, sve
dok je
+
+prisutna ova poruka. </p>
+
+
+
+<p align="center">Updated: <!-- hhmts start --> <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";>Vedran Ljuboviæ</a>, 1.1.2001.<!-- hhmts end -->
</p>
+
+
+
+<p align="center">Updated: <!-- hhmts start --> <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";>Alzan Soldiæ</a>, 20.12.2000.<!-- hhmts end -->
</p>
+
+
+
+<hr>
+
+</body>
+
+</html>
+
Index: the-gnu-project.bs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: the-gnu-project.bs.html
diff -N the-gnu-project.bs.html
--- the-gnu-project.bs.html 7 Feb 2007 02:35:10 -0000 1.3
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,1627 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
-
-<html>
-
-
-
-<head>
-
-<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
-
-<title>GNU Projekat - Fondacija za slobodan software (FSF)</title>
-
-<link REV="made" HREF="mailto:address@hidden";>
-
-<meta HTML-EQUIV="Keywords"
-
-CONTENT="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation,
-
- History">
-
-</head>
-
-
-
-<body BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000" LINK="#1F00FF" ALINK="#FF0000"
VLINK="#9900DD">
-
-
-
-<h3>GNU Projekat</h3>
-
-
-
-<p><a HREF="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
-
-
-
-<p>originalno izdano u knjizi "<i>Open Sources</i>" </p>
-
-
-
-<p><img SRC="http://www.gnu.org/graphics/whats-gnu-sm.jpg"; ALT=" [slika Sta je
GNU] ">
- [Albanski | <a href="the-gnu-project.bs.html"> Bosanski</a> | Katalonski |
Kineski(Obicni) | Kineski(Tradicionalni) |
-Hrvatski | <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.cs.html";> Èeski</a> |
Danski | Njemaèki |
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html";>Engleski</a> | <a
href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.fr.html";> Francuski</a> |
Grèki | Bugarski |
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.id.html";> Indonezijski</a> |
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.it.html";> Talijanski</a> |
Japanski
-| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.ko.html";> Korejski</a> |
Norve¹ki | Rumunski | Portugalski | Romski
-| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.ru.html";>Ruski</a> | Srpski
| <a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.es.html";> ©panski</a> |
©vedski
-| Èai | Turski | Vijetnamski] </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Prva software-sharing zajednica</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Kada sam poèeo raditi u MIT Laboratoriju umjetne inteligencije 1971-e,
postao sam dio
-
-software-sharing zajednice koja je postojala mnogo godina. Dijeljenje
software-a nije bilo
-
-ogranièeno samo na na¹u zajednicu; ono je staro koliko i kompjuteri, kao ¹to je
-
-dijeljenje recepata staro koliko i kuhanje. Ali mi smo to radili vi¹e nego
drugi. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>AI Lab (laboratorij um.int. op.prev.) je koristio timesharing operativni
sistem zvani ITS
-
-(the Incompatible Timesharing System) kojeg su hackeri (1) laboratorijskog
osoblja
-
-dizajnirali i napisali u asemblerskom jeziku za Digital PDP-10, jedan od
velikih kompjutera tog
-
-vremena. Kao èlan ove zajednice, AI Lab sistemski hacker, moj je posao bio da
pobolj¹am
-
-sistem. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Na¹ software nismo nazvali "slobodan software", jer taj pojam jo¹
nije ni
-
-postojao; ali je to u stvari bilo to. Kadgod su ljudi s drugih univerziteta
ili kompanija
-
-htjeli da portaju i koriste program, drage volje smo im dopustili. Ako ste
vidjeli nekoga
-
-da koristi nepoznat i interesantan program, uvijek ste mogli tra¾iti da vidite
source
-
-kod, da bi ga proèitali, promijenili, ili otkinuli dijelove da bi napravili
novi program.
-
-</p>
-
-
-
-<p>(1) Kori¹tenje rijeèi "hacker" u smislu "provala
sigurnosti" je
-
-zbunjujuæa za dijelove masovnih medija. Mi hackeri odbijamo da prihvatimo to
znaèenje,
-
-te nastavljamo koristiti rijeè u znaèenju "Neko ko voli programiranje i
u¾iva pametovati o tome". </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Raspad zajednice</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Situacija se drastièno promijenila ranih 80-tih kada je Digital ugasio
PDP-10 seriju.
-
-Njegova arhitektura, elegantna i moæna u 60-tim, nije se mogla pro¹iriti na
-
-veæi adresni prostor koji je postao dostupan u 80-tim. Ovo je znaèilo da su
-
-skoro svi programi koji su saèinjavali ITS postali zastarjeli. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Zajednica AI lab hackera se veæ raspala, nedugo prije. 1981., kompanija
-
-Symbolics je zaposlila gotovo sve hackere iz AI lab-a, te se tako razrijeðena
zajednica
-
-nije mogla uzdr¾avati. (knjiga <i>Hackers</i> autora Steve Levy-a opisuje
dogadjaje, te
-
-daje èistu sliku ove zajednice u svom vrhuncu.) Kada je AI lab kupio novi
PDP-10
-
-1982.-e, njegovi administratori su odluèili da koriste Digitalove
<i>timesharing</i>
-
-sisteme, koji nisu bili besplatni, umjesto ITS-a. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Moderni kompjuteri ove ere, kao VAX ili 68020, su imali sopstvene
operativne sisteme, ali
-
-nijedan od njih nije bio slobodan software: morali ste potpisati ugovor o
¹utnji (<i>nondisclosure
-
-agreement</i> - ugovor po kojemu niste smjeli odavati nikakve podatke o
proizvodu po.a.)
-
-da biste dobili izvr¹nu (.exe) kopiju. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ovo je znaèilo da je prvi korak u kori¹tenju kompjutera bio da se obeæa da
ne smijete
-
-pomoæi kom¹iji. Kooperativna zajednica je bila zabranjena. Pravilo vlasnika
-
-posjedovanog software-a bilo je, "Ako ga podijelite sa susjedom, onda ste
pirat. Ako
-
-¾elite ikakve promjene, molite nas da ih napravimo." </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ideja da je dru¹tveni sistem posjedovanog software-a--sistem koji ka¾e da
nije dozvoljeno dijeliti ili mijenjati
-
-software-- da je taj sistem anti-dru¹tven, neetièan, jednostavno pogre¹an,
mo¾e biti iznenaðenje za neke
-
-èitatelje. Ali ¹ta drugo mo¾emo reæi o sistemu baziranom na podjeli javnosti i
dr¾anju
-
-korisnika bespomoænim? Èitatelji koje ideja iznenadi su vjerojatno uzeli
-
-posjedovani software 'zdravo za gotovo', ili ga sude na principima koji
vrijede u
-
-biznisu posjedovanog software-a. Izdavaèi software-a su dugo radili da ubijede
ljude da
-
-je samo jedan naèin gledanja na ovo pitanje. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Kada izdavaèi software-a govore o "nametanju" svojih
"prava", ono
-
-¹to zaista *ka¾u* je sekundarno. Prava poruka ovih tvrdnji su neizreèene
pretpostavke
-
-koje uzimaju za pravo; javnost treba da ih prihvati bez kritike. Hajdemo ih
ispitati. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Jedna pretpostavka je da software kompanije imaju bezupitno pravo da
posjeduju software
-
-te stoga imaju moæ nad svim korisnicima. (Ako postoji prirodno pravo, bez
obzira koliko
-
-¹teti javnosti, ne smijemo prigovoriti.) Zanimljivo je da Ustav SAD-a i pravna
tradicija
-
-odbacuju ovaj stav; copyright nije prirodno pravo, nego umjetni monopol
nametnut od vlade
-
-koji ogranièava korisnike u namjeri da kopiraju. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Jo¹ jedna neizreèena pretpostavka je da je jedina va¾na stvar za software
ta ¹to
-
-vam omoguèava da uradite--da mi korisnici kompjutera ne bi smjeli mariti kakvu
vrstu
-
-dru¹tva smijemo imati. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Treæa pretpostavka je da ne bi imali korisnog software-a (ili nikada ne bi
imali
-
-program koji æe uraditi ovo ili ono) da nismo dali kompaniji moæ nad
korisnicima
-
-programa. Ove pretpostavke su mogle zvuèati vjerojatne, prije nego ¹to je
pokret
-
-slobodnog software-a demonstrirao da mo¾emo imati gomilu korisnih programa a
da ga ne
-
-stavljamo u lance. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ako odbijemo da prihvatimo ove pretpostavke, te sudimo ove stvari na
temelju zdravog
-
-razuma pri æemu na prvo mjesto stvaljamo korisnike, doæi æemo do razlièitih
-
-zakljuèaka. Korisnici kompjutera bi trebali biti slobodni da mijenjaju
programe za
-
-vlastite potrebe, jer je pomaganje drugima osnova drustva. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ovdje nema mjesta za op¹irne izjave o razlozima ovog stava, te ¾elim
usmjeriti
-
-èitatelja na web stranicu <a
HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html";>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html</a>.
-
-</p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Nepopustljiv moralni izbor.</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Sa odlaskom moje zajednice, nije bilo moguæe nastaviti kao prije. Umjesto
toga muèio
-
-me nepopustljiv moralni izbor. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Jednostavniji izbor bi bio da se pridru¾im svijetu posjedovanog software-a,
-
-potpisujuæi ugovor o ¹utnji i obeæavajuæi da neæu pomagati svojim prijateljima
-
-hackerima. najvjerojatnije bih i ja programirao software koji se prodavao pod
ugovorom o
-
-¹utnji, i prema tome èinio pritiske na druge ljude da izdaju svoje prijatelje.
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>Na ovaj naèin bih zaradio, te se mo¾da zabavljao pi¹uæi kod. Ali znao sam
da bih se
-
-na kraju karijere osvrnuo i vidio sve godine kroz koje sam pravio zidove meðu
ljudima, te
-
-bih osjeæao da sam proveo ¾ivot èineæi svijet gorim mjestom. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Veæ sam bio do¾ivio da budem na kraju ugovora o ¹utnji, kada je neto odbio
da daa
-
-meni i MIT AI lab-u source kod od kontrolnog programa za pisaæ. (Manjak nekih
stvari u
-
-programu je èinilo kori¹tenje printera frustrirajuæim.) Stoga nisam sebi mogao
reæi da
-
-su ugovori o ¹utnji nedu¾ni. Bio sam bijesan kada je odbio da ga podijeli sa
nama; nisam
-
-se mogao okrenuti i uraditi to isto svima drugima. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Drugi izbor, otvoren ali neugodan, je bio da napustim polje raèunarstva. Na
taj naèin
-
-moje sposobnosti ne bi bile zloupotrijebljene, ali bi i dalje bile
neiskoristene. Ne bih
-
-bio kri za podjelu i ogranièenja korisnika kompjutera, ali bi se to ipak
dogodilo. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Stoga sam potra¾io naèin na koji bi programer mogao uèiniti ne¹to dobro.
Upitao sam
-
-se, da li postoji program ili programi koje bih mogao napisati da bih jo¹
jednom
-
-zajednicu uèinio moguæom. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Odgovor je bio jednostavan: prvo ¹to sam trebao je operativni sistem. To je
osnovni
-
-software koji trebate imati da bi poèeli koristiti kompjuter. S operativnim
sistemom,
-
-mo¾ete mnogo toga uraditi; bez njega, ne mo¾ete ni pokrenuti kompjuter. S
slobodnim
-
-operativnim sistemom bismo ponovo mogli imati zajednicu kooperativnih
hackera--i pozvati
-
-svakoga da nam se pridru¾i. I svako bi mogao koristiti kompjuter a da ne mora
¹pijunirati
-
-svoje prijatelje. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Kao programer operativnog sistema, imao sam prave vje¹tine za posao. Pa
iako nisam
-
-mogao za to mogao uzeti zaslugu, shvatio sam da sam izabran za taj posao.
Izabrao sam da
-
-napravim operativni sistem kompatibilan Unix-u da bi bio portabilan, te da bi
se Unix
-
-korisnici mogli lagano prebaciti na njega. Ime GNU je izabrano koristeci
hackersku
-
-tradiciju, rekurzivni akronim za "GNU nije Unix (GNU's Not Unix)".
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>Operativni sistem se ne sastoji samo od kernela, koji jedva da mo¾e
pokrenuti druge
-
-programe. U 1970-tim svaki operativni sistem vrijedan pomena se satojao od
procesora,
-
-asemblera, kompajlera, interpretatora, debagera, tekst editora, mailers-a, i
jo¹ mnogo
-
-toga. ITS ih je imao, Multics takoðer, VMS ih je imao, te ih je imao i Unix.
GNU OS ih je
-
-takoðer trebao imati. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Kasnije sam èuo ove rijeèi, pripisane Hillel (1): </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ako nisam za sebe, ko æe biti za mene?<br>
-
-Ako sam samo za sebe, ¹ta sam ja?<br>
-
-Ako ne sada, kada? </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Odluka o osnivanju GNU projekta je bila bazirana na sliènoj ideji. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>(1) Kao ateista ne slijedim niti jednog religijskog vodju, ali ponekad
naðem ne¹to
-
-¹to je neko od njih rekao. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Slobodan kao u slobodi (*)</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Izraz 'slobodan software' se ponekad pokre¹no protumaèi--on nema ni¹ta sa
cijenom.
-
-Radi se o slobodi. Stoga definicija je slobodnog software-a: program je
slobodan
-
-software za vas, opæenito, ako:
-
-
-
-<ul>
-
- <li>Imate pravo da koristite program iz bilo kojeg razloga</li>
-
- <li>Imate da prilagoðavate program va¹im potrebama. (morate imati pristup
source kodu)</li>
-
- <li>Imate pravo redistribuirati kopije besplatno ili uz naplatu</li>
-
- <li>Imate pravo distribuirati modificirane verzije programa, tako da
zajednica mo¾e imati
-
- koristi od va¹ih prepravki</li>
-
-</ul>
-
-
-
-<p>Po¹to se 'slobodan' odnosi na slobodu, a ne na cijenu, nema suprotnosti
izmeðu
-
-prodavanja kopija i slobodnog software-a. U stvari, pravo prodaje kopija je
osnovno:
-
-kolekcioniranje slobodnog software-a koji se prodaje na CD-ROM-ovima je va¾no
za
-
-zajednicu i njihovom prodajom se prikuplja novac za razvoj slobodnog
software-a. Zbog
-
-toga program koji ljudi nisu slobodni da uvrste u ove kolekcije nije slobodan
software. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Zbog dvosmislenosti pojma 'slobodan', ljudi su dugo trazili alternative,
ali niko nije
-
-prona¹ao prikladnu alternativu. Engleski jezik ima vi¹e rijeèi i nijansi od
bilo kojeg
-
-drugog jezika, ali mu manjka jednostavna, nedvosmislena, rijeè koja znaèi
'slobodan' kao
-
-u rijeèi sloboda--'nesputan' je rijeè koja ima najbli¾e znaèenje, Alternative
kao
-
-'osloboðen', 'sloboda' i 'otvoren' imaju ili pogre¹no znaèenje ili neke druge
-
-nedostatke. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>(*) <i>rijec 'free' u engleskom ima dva znaèenja: besplatan i slobodan, te
se zbog
-
-toga i koriste u sliènom znaèenju u frazi 'free software'. op.prev.</i></p>
-
-
-
-<h3>GNU software i GNU sistem</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Razvoj èitavog sistema je veoma velik projekat. Da bi ga doveli nadohvat
ruke,
-
-odluèio sam da prilagodim i koristim postojeæe dijelove slobodnog software-a
gdje je
-
-god to bilo moguæe. Na primjer, na samom poèetku sam odluèio da koristim TeX
kao
-
-osnovni tekst formater; nekoliko godina kasnije sam odluèio da radije koristim
X Windows
-
-sistem nego da pi¹em jos jedan window sistem za GNU. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Zbog ove odluke GNU sistem nije isto kao kolekcija svog GNU software-a. GNU
sistem
-
-ukljuèuje programe koji nisu GNU software, programe koje su programirali drugi
ljudi i
-
-projekti za njihove potrebe, ali koje mo¾emo koristiti jer su slobodan
software. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Poèetak projekta</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>U januaru 1984. sam prekinuo posao u MIT-u i poèeo pisati GNU software.
Napu¹tanje
-
-MIT-a je bilo neophodno da se on ne bi upletao u distribuciju GNU-a kao
slobodnog
-
-software-a. Da sam ostao kao èlan osoblja, MIT je mogao tra¾iti vlasnièko
pravo nad
-
-software-om, te je mogao iznuditi svoje vlastite uvjete distribuiranja, ili
èak ga
-
-preokrenuti u posjedovani software. Nisam imao namjeru toliko mnogo uraditi da
bih vidio
-
-kako postaje beskoristan u svoj prvotnoj namjeri: stvaranju nove zajednice
koja bi
-
-dijelila software. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Meðutim, profesor Winston, tada¹nji sef MIT AI Lab-a, me ljubazno pozvao da
koristim
-
-laboratorijske prostorije. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Prvi koraci</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Nedugo prije poèinjanja GNU projekta, èuo sam za <i>Free University
Compiler Kit
-
-(besplatni univerzitetski kompajlerski paket)</i>, takoðer poznat kao VUCK.
(nizozemska
-
-rijec za 'besplatan' se pi¹e sa V). Ovo je bio kompajler dizajniran da radi s
vi¹e
-
-jezika, ukljuèujuæi C i Pascal, i da podr¾ava mnogostruke target ma¹ine. Pitao
sam
-
-autora smije li ga GNU koristiti. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Odgovorio je prezirno da je univerzitet besplatan ali kompajler nije. Stoga
sam
-
-odluèio da moj prvi program za GNU projekat mora biti multi-jezièni,
multi-platformski
-
-kompajler. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Nadajuæi se da æu izbjeæi pisanje cijelog kompajlera, nabavio sam source
kod Pastel
-
-kompajlera, koji je bio multi-platformski kompajler programiran u Lawrence
Livermore
-
-Lab-u. Podr¾avao je, i bio pisan u njemu, produ¾enu verziju Pascala dizajniran
da bude
-
-sistem-programski jezik. Dodao sam prednji dio u C-u i poèeo portovanje na
Motorola 68000
-
-kompjuter. Ali sam morao odustati kada sam otkrio da kompajler treba vi¹e
megabajta <i>stack
-
-space-a</i>, dok je 68000 Unix sistem dozvoljavao samo 64k. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Tada sam shvatio da paster kompajler funkcionira tako da dijeli èitav input
file u
-
-sintax tree, konvertira cijeli syntax tree u lanac 'instrukcija', te zatim
generira cijeli
-
-output file, a da nikada ne prazni nikakav <i>storage</i>. Novi kompajler je
danas znan
-
-kao GCC; ni¹ta od Pastel kompajlera se ne koristi u njemu, ali sam uspio da
prilagodim i
-
-koristim prednji dio pisan u C-u i zadnji dio pisan u C-u koji sam napisao.
Ali to je bilo
-
-nekoliko godina kasnije; prvo sam radio na GNU Emacs-u. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>GNU Emacs</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>U septembru 1984. sam poèeo raditi na Emacs-u, te se poèetkom 1985. mogao
koristiti.
-
-Ovo mi je omoguèilo da poènem koristiti Unix sisteme za editovanje; nije me
interesiralo
-
-da nauèim koristiti vi ili ed, pa sam do tada vr¹io editovanja na drugim
masinama. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>U tom trenutku su ljudi poèeli iskazivati ¾elju da koriste GNU Emacs, ¹to je
-
-stvorilo pitanje kako ga distribuirati. Naravno, stavio sam ga na anonymous
ftp server na
-
-MIT kompjuteru koje sam koristio. (Ovaj kompjuter, prep.ai.mit.edu, je prema
tome postao
-
-osnovni GNU ftp site za distribuciju; kada je uga¹en nekoliko godina kasnije,
prenijeli
-
-smo ime na na¹ novi ftp server.) Ali u to vrijeme veèina zainteresiranih ljudi
nije bila
-
-na Internetu i nije mogla dobiti kopiju preko ftp-a. Stoga se postavilo
pitanje, ¹ta da
-
-im ka¾em? </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Mogao sam reæi, "Naði prijatelja koji ima pristup internetu i koji æe
ti
-
-napraviti kopiju." Ili sam mogao uraditi ono ¹to sam radio s originalnim
PDP-10
-
-Emacs-om: reæi im, "Po¹alji mi traku i SASE, i ja æu ti sve to poslati sa
-
-snimljenim Emacs-om." Ali nisam imao posao, i tra¾io sam nacina da
zaradim od
-
-slobodnog software-a. Stoga sam objavio da cu svakom poslati traku za $150. Na
ovaj
-
-naèin sam zapoèeo distribuciju slobodnog software-a, preteæi kompanijama koje
danas
-
-distribuiraju cijeli GNU sistem baziran na Linux-u. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Da li je program slobodan za svakoga korisnika?</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Ako je program slobodan software i kada napusti ruke autora, ne znaèi da æe
biti
-
-slobodan za svakoga ko ima kopiju. Na primjer, software u public domainu
(software koji
-
-nije pod copyright-om) je besplatan; ali svako mo¾e napraviti posjedovanu
modificiranu
-
-verziju. Na isti naèin, mnogi slobodni programi su pod copyright-om, ali se
-
-distribuiraju pod jednostavnim dopu¹tajuæim licencama koje dozvoljavaju
posjedovane
-
-modificirane verzije. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Paradigmatski primjer ovog problema je X Windows sistem razvijen u MIT-u, i
objavljen
-
-kao slobodan software s dopu¹tajuæom licencom, kojeg su ubrzo prihvatile razne
-
-kompjuterske kompanije. Dodali su X-e svojim posjedovanim Unix sistemima, samo
u binarnoj
-
-formi, te stavili pod isti ugovor o ¹utnji. Ove kopije X-a nisu ni¹ta vi¹e
slobodne
-
-nego ¹to je Unix. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Programeri X Windows-a nisu razmatrali ovaj problem--oèekivali su i ¾eljeli
da se ovo
-
-dogodi. Njihov cilj nije bila sloboda, nego uspjeh, definiran kao 'imati mnogo
korisnika'.
-
-Nije ih zanimalo da li æe ovi korisnici imati slobodu, samo da budu
mnogobrojni. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ovo nas je dovelo do paradoksalne situacije gdje su dva razlicita naèina
raèunanja na
-
-kolièinu slobode dovela do razlièitih odgovora na pitanje 'Da li je program
slobodan?'.
-
-Ako sudite na temelju slobode koju daju MIT uvjeti distribuiranja, rekli biste
da su X-i
-
-slobodan software. Ali ako mjerite slobodu obiènog korisika X-a, rekli biste
da je
-
-posjedovani software. Veæina X korisnika je koristila posjedovanu verziju koja
je do¹la s
-
-Unix sistemima, a ne slobodnu. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Copyleft i GNU GPL</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Cilj GNU-a je bio da korisnicima pru¾i slobodu, a ne da samo bude
popularan. Stoga
-
-trebamo koristiti uvjete distribuiranja koji bi sprijeèili da se GNU software
pretvori u
-
-posjedovani software. Metoda koju koristimo se zove "copyleft". (1)
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>Copyleft koristi copyright zakon, ali dopusta da bude u suprotnosti s
osnovnom
-
-namjerom: umjesto sa bude sredstvo privatiziranja software-a, ono postaje
sredstvo koje se
-
-brine da software bude slobodan. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Osnovna ideja copyleft-a je da svakome damo dozvolu da koristi program,
kopira ga,
-
-modificira, te distribuira modificirane verzije--ali da ne dozoli da stavljaju
-
-ogranièenja. Prema tome, glavne slobode koje definiraju "slobodan
software" su
-
-garantirane svakom ko ima kopiju; one postaju neotuðiva prava. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>---------------------------- <br>
-
-Tekst ispod jo¹ nije preveden.</p>
-
-
-
-<p> </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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." </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code. Such a
-
-combination would inevitably be non-free; whichever freedoms are lacking for
the non-free
-
-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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>(1) 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>The Free Software Foundation</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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, 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from
sales--of copies
-
-of free software, and of other related services. Today it sells CD-ROMs of
source code,
-
-CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals (all with freedom to
redistribute and
-
-modify), and Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of
software for
-
-your choice of platform). </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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(1), which was
developed by
-
-FSF employee Brian Fox. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>(1) "Bourne again Shell" is a joke on the name ``Bourne Shell'',
which was
-
-the usual shell on Unix. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Free software support</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Watch out, though--a number of companies that associate themselves with the
term
-
-"open source" actually base their business on non-free 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
"value
-
-added", which reflects the values they would like us to adopt:
convenience above
-
-freedom. If we value freedom more, we should call them "freedom
subtracted"
-
-products. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Technical goals</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>The principal goal of GNU was 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
counterparts in
-
-reliability and speed. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Donated computers</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 free
replacement that
-
-would help others stop using the proprietary package. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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.
-
-</p>
-
-
-
-<h3>The GNU Task List</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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 added various other
useful
-
-software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly complete system
ought to
-
-have. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Today, hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU task list--those jobs
have 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>The GNU Library GPL</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU Library
General Public
-
-License, which gives permission to link proprietary software with the library.
Why make
-
-this exception? </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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.
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Scratching an itch?</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Eric Raymond says that "Every good work of software starts by
scratching a
-
-developer's personal itch." 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
needs a C
-
-library, the Bourne-Again Shell (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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 non-free
encryption
-
-software, because users should not have to choose between privacy and freedom.
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Unexpected developments</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>The GNU Hurd</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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 (or ``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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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
-
-multi-threaded 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Alix</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Ultimately, 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name
Alix in the
-
-HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the name did its job. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Linux and GNU/Linux</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use. Fortunately, another kernel
is available.
-
-In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a Unix-compatible kernel and called it
Linux. Around
-
-1992, 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
combination of
-
-the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Challenges in our future</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>The following four sections discuss these challenges. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Secret hardware</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Hardware manufactures 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 non-free 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Non-free libraries</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>A non-free 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
<strong>run</strong>
-
-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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called Qt, was
used in a
-
-substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: GNOME and
Harmony. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 non-free software.
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it possible
to run KDE
-
-software without using Qt. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 non-free. (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains
desirable to
-
-avoid using Qt.) </p>
-
-
-
-<p>How will we respond to the next tempting non-free 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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Software patents</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed
audio was
-
-removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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? </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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 techically 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 "cathedral" model of development, and the
reliability and
-
-power of some free software, we must not stop there. We must talk about
freedom and
-
-principle. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Free documentation</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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, on-line and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy
of the
-
-program. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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
-
-does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, does not
fill our
-
-community's needs. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
produce a full
-
-spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends on philosophy. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>We must talk about freedom</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>"Open Source"</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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? </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>"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. </p>
-
-
-
-<h3>Try!</h3>
-
-
-
-<p>Yoda's philosophy ("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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>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. </p>
-
-
-
-<hr>
-
-
-
-<p>Vratite se na <a HREF="../home.bs.html">GNU home page</a>. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Sva pitanja za FSF & GNU ¹aljite na <a
HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-
-Drugi <a HREF="../home.bs.html#ContactInfo">naèin da kontaktirate</a> FSF. </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Sve komentare i pitanja ¹aljite na <a
HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>,
-
-a sva druga na <a HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
-
-
-
-<p>Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin
St - Suite
-
-330, Boston, MA 02110, USA </p>
-
-
-
-<p>Kopiranje i distribucija èitavog èlanka je dozvoljena u svakom pogledu, sve
dok je
-
-prisutna ova poruka. </p>
-
-
-
-<p align="center">Updated: <!-- hhmts start --> <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";>Vedran Ljuboviæ</a>, 1.1.2001.<!-- hhmts end -->
</p>
-
-
-
-<p align="center">Updated: <!-- hhmts start --> <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";>Alzan Soldiæ</a>, 20.12.2000.<!-- hhmts end -->
</p>
-
-
-
-<hr>
-
-</body>
-
-</html>
-
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/gnu .symlinks thegnuproject.bs.html the-gnu...,
Yavor Doganov <=