[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy shouldbefree.html
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy shouldbefree.html |
|
Date: |
Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:39:07 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 07/06/21 21:39:06
Modified files:
philosophy : shouldbefree.html
Log message:
* Fixed translations list.
* Use proper entities for dashes and quotes.
* Removed the link to digitalspeech.org as it requires a password.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
Patches:
Index: shouldbefree.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -b -r1.27 -r1.28
--- shouldbefree.html 19 Jun 2007 00:02:58 -0000 1.27
+++ shouldbefree.html 21 Jun 2007 21:39:03 -0000 1.28
@@ -34,19 +34,21 @@
I would like to consider the same question using a different
criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.</p>
<p>
- This answer cannot be decided by current law--the law should conform
-to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide
-this question, although it may suggest possible answers. The only way
-to judge is to see who is helped and who is hurt by recognizing owners
-of software, why, and how much. In other words, we should perform a
-cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of
-individual freedom as well as production of material goods.</p>
+ This answer cannot be decided by current law—the law should
+conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current
+practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible
+answers. The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is
+hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much. In other
+words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society
+as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production
+of material goods.</p>
<p>
In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and
show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that
programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute,
study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write
-<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free” software</a>.<a
href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free”
+software</a>.<a href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
<h3 id="owner-justification">How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
<p>
@@ -54,25 +56,27 @@
offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
emotional argument and the economic argument.</p>
<p>
- The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my heart, my
-soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>, it's
<em>mine</em>!”</p>
+ The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my
+heart, my soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>,
+it's <em>mine</em>!”</p>
<p>
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of
-attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it
-is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same
+attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them;
+it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same
programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a
salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast,
consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't
even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist
-was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the
-purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.</p>
-<p>
- The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich (usually
-described inaccurately as `making a living'), and if you don't allow me
-to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like
-me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no
-programs at all!” This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice
-from the wise.</p>
+was not important. What mattered was that the work was done—and
+the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of
+years.</p>
+<p>
+ The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich
+(usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and
+if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't
+program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And
+then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is
+usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise.</p>
<p>
I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to
address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another
@@ -82,8 +86,8 @@
proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two
-outcomes--proprietary software vs. no software--and assuming there are
-no other possibilities.</p>
+outcomes—proprietary software vs. no software—and assuming
+there are no other possibilities.</p>
<p>
Given a system of software copyright, software development is
usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the
@@ -116,11 +120,11 @@
two possible worlds.</p>
<p>
This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
-made that “the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a
-program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.” This
-counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal in
-magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and shows
-that the benefit is much greater.</p>
+made that “the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a
+copy of a program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.”
+This counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal
+in magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and
+shows that the benefit is much greater.</p>
<p>
To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
construction.</p>
@@ -130,8 +134,8 @@
Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It
would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to
pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction
-to smooth driving--artificial, because it is not a consequence of how
-roads or cars work.</p>
+to smooth driving—artificial, because it is not a consequence of
+how roads or cars work.</p>
<p>
Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find
that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
@@ -143,31 +147,33 @@
way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be
free.</p>
<p>
- When the advocates of toll booths propose them as <em>merely</em> a way of
-raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll booths
-do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they
-degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving
-us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this
-means substituting toll roads for free roads.</p>
+ When the advocates of toll booths propose them as <em>merely</em> a
+way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll
+booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect,
+they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road;
+giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement
+if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.</p>
<p>
Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the
public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability
of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for
our money by buying a free road.</p>
<p>
- I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. That
-would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used the
-road--but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. However, as
-long as the toll booths cause significant waste and inconvenience, it is
-better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion.</p>
+ I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all.
+That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used
+the road—but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector.
+However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and
+inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive
+fashion.</p>
<p>
To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
-that having “toll booths” for useful software programs costs
society
-dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to construct, more
-expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and efficient to use. It
-will follow that program construction should be encouraged in some other
-way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to
-the extent actually necessary) funding software development.</p>
+that having “toll booths” for useful software programs
+costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to
+construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and
+efficient to use. It will follow that program construction should be
+encouraged in some other way. Then I will go on to explain other
+methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding
+software development.</p>
<h4 id="harm-done">The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4>
<p>
@@ -267,12 +273,12 @@
find it acceptable.</p>
<p>
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
-neighbor: “I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I
-can have a copy for myself.” People who make such choices feel
-internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the
-importance of helping one's neighbors--thus public spirit suffers. This
-is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of discouraging
-use of the program.</p>
+neighbor: “I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so
+that I can have a copy for myself.” People who make such choices
+feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading
+the importance of helping one's neighbors—thus public spirit
+suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm
+of discouraging use of the program.</p>
<p>
Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
@@ -303,19 +309,20 @@
The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
older technology. But most commercially available software isn't
available for modification, even after you buy it. It's available for
-you to take it or leave it, as a black box--that is all.</p>
+you to take it or leave it, as a black box—that is all.</p>
<p>
A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose
meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
change the numbers to make the program do something different.</p>
<p>
- Programmers normally work with the “source code” for a program,
which
-is written in a programming language such as Fortran or C. It uses
-names to designate the data being used and the parts of the program, and
-it represents operations with symbols such as `+' for addition and `-'
-for subtraction. It is designed to help programmers read and change
-programs. Here is an example; a program to calculate the distance
-between two points in a plane:</p>
+ Programmers normally work with the “source code” for a
+program, which is written in a programming language such as Fortran or
+C. It uses names to designate the data being used and the parts of
+the program, and it represents operations with symbols such as
+‘+’ for addition and ‘-’ for subtraction. It
+is designed to help programmers read and change programs. Here is an
+example; a program to calculate the distance between two points in a
+plane:</p>
<pre>
float
@@ -348,20 +355,22 @@
execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the
program.</p>
<p>
- A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for about
-six months, writing a program similar to something that was commercially
-available. She believed that if she could have gotten source code for
-that commercially available program, it could easily have been adapted
-to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for this, but was not
-permitted to--the source code was a secret. So she had to do six
-months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but was actually waste.</p>
-<p>
- The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics
-printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software
-to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software
-would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever
-the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper,
-the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
+ A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for
+about six months, writing a program similar to something that was
+commercially available. She believed that if she could have gotten
+source code for that commercially available program, it could easily
+have been adapted to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for
+this, but was not permitted to—the source code was a secret. So
+she had to do six months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but
+was actually waste.</p>
+<p>
+ The <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>
+Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a
+gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we
+added many convenient features. For example, the software would
+notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the
+printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the
+software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.</p>
<p>
Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first
@@ -383,37 +392,39 @@
could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from
scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.</p>
<p>
- Giving up causes psychosocial harm--to the spirit of self-reliance.
-It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot rearrange to suit
-your needs. It leads to resignation and discouragement, which can
-spread to affect other aspects of one's life. People who feel this way
-are unhappy and do not do good work.</p>
+ Giving up causes psychosocial harm—to the spirit of
+self-reliance. It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot
+rearrange to suit your needs. It leads to resignation and
+discouragement, which can spread to affect other aspects of one's
+life. People who feel this way are unhappy and do not do good
+work.</p>
<p>
Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
-fashion as software. You might say, “How do I change this recipe to
-take out the salt?” and the great chef would respond, “How dare you
-insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my palate, by trying to
-tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to change my recipe and
-make it work right!”</p>
-<p>
- “But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I do?
-Will you take out the salt for me?”</p>
-<p>
- “I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.” Since the
-owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. “However,
-right now I don't have time. I am busy with a commission to design a
-new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get
-around to you in about two years.”</p>
+fashion as software. You might say, “How do I change this
+recipe to take out the salt?” and the great chef would respond,
+“How dare you insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my
+palate, by trying to tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to
+change my recipe and make it work right!”</p>
+<p>
+ “But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I
+do? Will you take out the salt for me?”</p>
+<p>
+ “I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.”
+Since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large.
+“However, right now I don't have time. I am busy with a
+commission to design a new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy
+Department. I might get around to you in about two years.”</p>
<h4 id="software-development">Obstructing Software Development</h4>
<p>
The third level of material harm affects software development.
-Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a person
-would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one new
-feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add another
-feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty years.
-Meanwhile, parts of the program would be “cannibalized” to form the
-beginnings of other programs.</p>
+Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a
+person would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one
+new feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add
+another feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty
+years. Meanwhile, parts of the program would be
+“cannibalized” to form the beginnings of other
+programs.</p>
<p>
The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also
@@ -426,10 +437,10 @@
begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't
see how others have done it.</p>
<p>
- In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by standing
-on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally allowed in
-the software field--you can only stand on the shoulders of the other
-people <em>in your own company</em>.</p>
+ In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by
+standing on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally
+allowed in the software field—you can only stand on the
+shoulders of the other people <em>in your own company</em>.</p>
<p>
The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
@@ -447,12 +458,13 @@
<h4 id="does-not-matter-how">It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted</h4>
<p>
- I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying,
-changing, and building on a program. I have not specified how this
-obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the conclusion.
-Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or licenses, or
-encryption, or ROM cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it <em>succeeds</em>
-in preventing use, it does harm.</p>
+ I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from
+copying, changing, and building on a program. I have not specified
+how this obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the
+conclusion. Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or
+licenses, or encryption, or <acronym title="Read-only Memory">ROM</acronym>
+cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it <em>succeeds</em> in
+preventing use, it does harm.</p>
<p>
Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others.
I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
@@ -460,8 +472,8 @@
<h4 id="should-be-free">Software Should be Free</h4>
<p>
- I have shown how ownership of a program--the power to restrict
-changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are
+ I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict
+changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are
widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have
owners for programs.</p>
<p>
@@ -507,12 +519,13 @@
special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.</p>
<p>
This change happened in the field of computer programming in the
-past decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on “computer
-addiction”: users were “onlining” and had
hundred-dollar-a-week
-habits. It was generally understood that people frequently loved
-programming enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is
-generally understood that no one would program except for a high rate
-of pay. People have forgotten what they knew fifteen years ago.</p>
+past decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on
+“computer addiction”: users were “onlining”
+and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits. It was generally understood
+that people frequently loved programming enough to break up their
+marriages. Today, it is generally understood that no one would
+program except for a high rate of pay. People have forgotten what they
+knew fifteen years ago.</p>
<p>
When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic
@@ -521,9 +534,9 @@
people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.</p>
<p>
- The question, “How can we pay programmers?” becomes an easier
-question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a
-fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p>
+ The question, “How can we pay programmers?” becomes an
+easier question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them
+a fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p>
<h4 id="funding">Funding Free Software</h4>
<p>
@@ -545,40 +558,41 @@
development.</p>
<p>
It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
-develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call
-that “finished”, and then start companies where they really finish
the
-project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare the unfinished
-version “free”; if they are thoroughly corrupt, they instead get an
-exclusive license from the university. This is not a secret; it is
-openly admitted by everyone concerned. Yet if the researchers were not
-exposed to the temptation to do these things, they would still do their
-research.</p>
+develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and
+call that “finished”, and then start companies where they
+really finish the project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare
+the unfinished version “free”; if they are thoroughly
+corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university.
+This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned.
+Yet if the researchers were not exposed to the temptation to do these
+things, they would still do their research.</p>
<p>
Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling
services related to the software. I have been hired to port the
-<a href="/software/gcc/gcc.html">GNU C compiler</a> to new hardware, and
+<a href="/software/gcc/">GNU C compiler</a> to new hardware, and
to make user-interface extensions to
-<a href="/software/emacs/emacs.html">GNU Emacs</a>. (I offer these
-improvements to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes
-for which I am paid.</p>
+<a href="/software/emacs/">GNU Emacs</a>. (I offer these improvements
+to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I
+am paid.</p>
<p>
I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful,
growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other
companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the
GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support
-industry--an industry that could become quite large if free software
-becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option generally
-unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very wealthy.</p>
+industry—an industry that could become quite large if free
+software becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option
+generally unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very
+wealthy.</p>
<p>
New institutions such as the <a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Free Software
Foundation</a> can also fund programmers. Most of the Foundation's
funds come from users buying tapes through the mail. The software on
the tapes is free, which means that every user has the freedom to copy
it and change it, but many nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall
-that “free software” refers to freedom, not to price.) Some users
-who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a contribution
-they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives sizable donations
-from computer manufacturers.</p>
+that “free software” refers to freedom, not to price.)
+Some users who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a
+contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives
+sizable donations from computer manufacturers.</p>
<p>
The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on
hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a
@@ -644,14 +658,14 @@
productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief
that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?</p>
<p>
- “Software productivity” can mean two different things: the
overall
-productivity of all software development, or the productivity of
-individual projects. Overall productivity is what society would like to
-improve, and the most straightforward way to do this is to eliminate the
-artificial obstacles to cooperation which reduce it. But researchers
-who study the field of “software productivity” focus only on the
-second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult
-technological advances.</p>
+ “Software productivity” can mean two different things:
+the overall productivity of all software development, or the
+productivity of individual projects. Overall productivity is what
+society would like to improve, and the most straightforward way to do
+this is to eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which
+reduce it. But researchers who study the field of “software
+productivity” focus only on the second, limited, sense of the
+term, where improvement requires difficult technological advances.</p>
<h3 id="competition">Is Competition Inevitable?</h3>
<p>
@@ -659,13 +673,14 @@
rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
harmful; the harmful thing is <em>combat</em>.</p>
<p>
- There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to
-achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the
-old days, there was competition among programming wizards--competition
-for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who
-could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind
-of competition can benefit everyone, <em>as long as</em> the spirit of good
-sportsmanship is maintained.</p>
+ There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying
+to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in
+the old days, there was competition among programming
+wizards—competition for who could make the computer do the most
+amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program
+for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit
+everyone, <em>as long as</em> the spirit of good sportsmanship is
+maintained.</p>
<p>
Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have
@@ -674,10 +689,11 @@
desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.</p>
<p>
Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
-impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when “Let the best
-person win” gives way to “Let me win, best or not.”
Proprietary
-software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but
-because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.</p>
+impede each other instead of advancing themselves—when
+“Let the best person win” gives way to “Let me win,
+best or not.” Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is
+a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the
+citizens of our society.</p>
<p>
Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when
two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
@@ -712,10 +728,9 @@
party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent
illegal copying.</p>
<p>
- The American system of software copyright exercises central
-control over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment
-with <a href="http://www.digitalspeech.org/";>automatic copying-protection
-schemes</a> to prevent illegal copying.</p>
+ The American system of software copyright exercises central control
+over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with
+automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.</p>
<p>
By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free
to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their
@@ -735,9 +750,9 @@
<p>
This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an
author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else.
-They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software is
-to give the author's employer the advantage he deserves--regardless of
-how this may affect the public.</p>
+They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software
+is to give the author's employer the advantage he
+deserves—regardless of how this may affect the public.</p>
<p>
It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof
requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed
@@ -755,11 +770,12 @@
part of our legal tradition. It never has been.</p>
<p>
Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
-“promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” The Supreme
-Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal' that “The
-sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
-the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the
-public from the labors of authors.”</p>
+“promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” The
+Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in ‘Fox Film
+vs. Doyal’ that “The sole interest of the United States
+and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in
+the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
+authors.”</p>
<p>
We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions
@@ -794,35 +810,35 @@
<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
<ol>
-<li> <a id="f1"> The word “free” in “free software”
refers to
-freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may
-be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.</a></li>
-
-<li> <a id="f2"> The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not alter
-this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to
-discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using
-toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax
-on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by
-limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road enhances the
-average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed limit.</a></li>
+<li><a id="f1"></a>The word “free” in “free
+software” refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a
+copy of a free program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite
+large.</li>
+
+<li><a id="f2"></a>The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do
+not alter this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive
+to discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this
+using toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion.
+A tax on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance
+safety by limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road
+enhances the average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given
+speed limit.</li>
-<li> <a id="f3">One might regard a particular computer program as a
+<li><a id="f3"></a>One might regard a particular computer program as a
harmful thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus
Marketplace database of personal information, which was withdrawn from
sale due to public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to
this case, but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on
the grounds that the owner will make the program less available. The
owner will not make it <em>completely</em> unavailable, as one would
-wish in the case of a program whose use is considered destructive.</a></li>
+wish in the case of a program whose use is considered
+destructive.</li>
</ol>
-
<hr />
<h4>This essay is published in <a href="/doc/book13.html"><cite>Free Software,
Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a></h4>
-<h4><a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a></h4>
-
<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general, -->
<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
@@ -839,10 +855,7 @@
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
-<!-- If you are a project maintainer or developer, please use -->
-<!-- your own email, as webmasters does not manage most -->
-<!-- project webpages (those that we do, you know who you are). -->
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
</p>
@@ -865,7 +878,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/06/19 00:02:58 $
+$Date: 2007/06/21 21:39:03 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
@@ -887,22 +900,36 @@
<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities -->
<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- Czech -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.cs.html">Česky</a> [cs]</li>
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
<!-- English -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a>
<!-- Chinese(Simplified) --></li>
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.zh-tw.html">繁體中文</a>
<!-- Chinese(Traditional) --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.cs.html">Česky</a> <!--
Czech --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.de.html">Deutsch</a> <!-- German
--></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html">English</a></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.es.html">Español</a> <!--
Spanish --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fr.html">Français</a> <!--
French --></li>
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.he.html">עברית</a>
<!-- Hebrew --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a> <!--
Indonesian --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.nl.html">Nederlands</a> <!-- Dutch
--></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.pl.html">Polski</a> <!-- Polish
--></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.pt.html">Português</a> <!--
Portuguese --></li>
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.ru.html">Русский</a>
<!-- Russian --></li>
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.sr.html">Српски</a>
<!-- Serbian --></li>
-<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html">Suomi</a> <!-- Finnish
--></li>
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- Finnish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html">Suomi</a> [fi]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Hebrew -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.he.html">עברית</a> [he]</li>
+<!-- Indonesian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.id.html">Bahasa
Indonesia</a> [id]</li>
+<!-- Dutch -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+<!-- Portuguese -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.pt.html">Português</a> [pt]</li>
+<!-- Russian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.ru.html">Русский</a> [ru]</li>
+<!-- Serbian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.sr.html">Српски</a> [sr]</li>
+<!-- Chinese(Simplified) -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a> [zh-cn]</li>
+<!-- Chinese(Traditional) -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.zh-tw.html">繁體中文</a> [zh-tw]</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy shouldbefree.html,
Yavor Doganov <=