[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/gnu thegnuproject.html
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
www/gnu thegnuproject.html |
|
Date: |
Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:13:34 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /webcvs/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 10/06/26 21:13:34
Modified files:
gnu : thegnuproject.html
Log message:
Many small changes, often capitaliztion and punctuation.
Add note about changes in FSF's income sources.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
Patches:
Index: thegnuproject.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/gnu/thegnuproject.html,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- thegnuproject.html 25 Jun 2010 08:16:31 -0000 1.41
+++ thegnuproject.html 26 Jun 2010 21:13:32 -0000 1.42
@@ -51,8 +51,10 @@
(1) The use of “hacker” to mean “security
breaker” is a confusion on the part of the mass media. We
hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and continue using the word
-to mean, “Someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever
-about it.”</p>
+to mean someone who loves to program, someone who enjoys playful
+cleverness, or the combination of the two. See my
+article, <a html="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html";>On
+Hacking</a>.</p>
<h3>The collapse of the community</h3>
<p>
@@ -62,9 +64,9 @@
spaces that were becoming feasible in the 80s. This meant that nearly
all of the programs composing ITS were obsolete.</p>
<p>
-The AI lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before.
+The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before.
In 1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of
-the hackers from the AI lab, and the depopulated community was unable
+the hackers from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable
to maintain itself. (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these
events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its
prime.) When the AI lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its
@@ -81,12 +83,12 @@
share with your neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes,
beg us to make them.”</p>
<p>
-The idea that the proprietary-software social system—the system that
+The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system that
says you are not allowed to share or change software—is antisocial,
that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise
to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on
dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the
-idea surprising may have taken proprietary-software social system as
+idea surprising may have taken proprietary software social system as
given, or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software
businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince
people that there is only one way to look at the issue.</p>
@@ -94,8 +96,8 @@
When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their
“rights” or “stopping <a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy">piracy</a>”, what they
actually <em>say</em> is secondary. The real message of these statements is
-in the unstated assumptions they take for granted; the public is
-supposed to accept them uncritically. So let's examine them.</p>
+in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the public is
+asked to accept without examination. Let's therefore examine them.</p>
<p>
One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural
right to own software and thus have power over all its users. (If
@@ -117,7 +119,7 @@
putting chains on it.</p>
<p>
If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues
-based on ordinary common-sense morality while placing the users first,
+based on ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first,
we arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be
free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share
software, because helping other people is the basis of society.</p>
@@ -173,7 +175,7 @@
So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
was elected to do the job. I chose to make the system compatible with
Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
-switch to it. The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as
+switch to it. The name GNU was chosen, following a hacker tradition, as
a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not Unix.”</p>
<p>
An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run
@@ -191,7 +193,7 @@
If not now, when?
</p></blockquote>
<p>
-The decision to start the GNU project was based on a similar spirit.</p>
+The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit.</p>
<p>
(1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.</p>
@@ -200,11 +202,13 @@
<p>
The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it
has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore,
-is the definition of free software: a program is free software, for
-you, a particular user, if:</p>
+is the definition of free software.</p>
+
+<p>A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:</p>
<ul>
- <li>You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.</li>
+ <li>You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any
purpose.</li>
+
<li>You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs.
(To make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access
to the source code, since making changes in a program without
@@ -226,7 +230,7 @@
collections is not free software.</p>
<p>
Because of the ambiguity of “free”, people have long
-looked for alternatives, but no one has found a suitable alternative.
+looked for alternatives, but no one has found a better term.
The English Language has more words and nuances than any other, but it
lacks a simple, unambiguous, word that means “free”, as in
freedom—“unfettered” being the word that comes closest in
@@ -266,7 +270,7 @@
<h3>The first steps</h3>
<p>
-Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free
University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for
“free” is written with a <em>v</em>.) This was a compiler
designed to handle multiple languages, including C and Pascal, and to
@@ -275,7 +279,7 @@
<p>
He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the
compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the
-GNU project would be a multi-language, multi-platform compiler.</p>
+GNU Project would be a multi-language, multi-platform compiler.</p>
<p>
Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I
obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a
@@ -284,7 +288,7 @@
to be a system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began
porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer. But I had to give that
up when I discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack
-space, and the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.</p>
+space, while the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.</p>
<p>
I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the
entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree
@@ -345,7 +349,7 @@
problem—they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was
not freedom, just “success”, defined as “having many
users.” They did not care whether these users had freedom, only
-that they should be numerous.</p>
+about having many of them.</p>
<p>
This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
@@ -364,8 +368,8 @@
called “copyleft”.(1)</p>
<p>
Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
-of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it
-becomes a means of keeping software free.</p>
+of its usual purpose: rather than a means for restricting a program, it
+becomes a means for keeping the program free.</p>
<p>
The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to
run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute
@@ -390,9 +394,9 @@
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
+A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code.
+Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms
+are lacking for the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as
well. To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to
sink a ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug
this hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program
@@ -420,7 +424,7 @@
<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
+once again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a
tax-exempt charity for free software development. The
<acronym title="Free Software Foundation">FSF</acronym> also took over
the Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding
@@ -434,6 +438,10 @@
Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software
for your choice of platform).</p>
<p>
+[2010 note: Nowadays sales provide a small part of the FSF's income,
+and its biggest source of income is members' dues. You can
+join the FSF at <a href="http://fsf.org";>fsf.org.</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
@@ -443,7 +451,7 @@
<acronym title="Bourne Again Shell">BASH</acronym>, 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
+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>
@@ -473,16 +481,16 @@
<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
+on nonfree software that works with free software. These are not
free software companies, they are proprietary software companies whose
-products tempt users away from freedom. They call these “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>
+products tempt users away from freedom. They call these programs
+“value-added packages”, which shows the values they
+would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If we value freedom
+more, we should call them “freedom-subtracted” packages.</p>
<h3>Technical goals</h3>
<p>
-The principal goal of GNU was to be free software. Even if GNU had no
+The principal goal of GNU is to be free software. Even if GNU had no
technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage,
allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the
user's freedom.</p>
@@ -505,14 +513,14 @@
<h3>Donated computers</h3>
<p>
-As the GNU project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate
+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
+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
@@ -526,16 +534,16 @@
<h3>The GNU Task List</h3>
<p>
-As the GNU project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
+As the GNU Project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to
make a list of the remaining gaps. We used it to recruit developers
-to write the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU task
-list. In addition to missing Unix components, we listed various
+to write the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU Task
+List. In addition to missing Unix components, we listed various
other useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a
truly complete system ought to have.</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
+Today (1), hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task List—those
+jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But the list
is full of projects that some might call “applications”.
Any program that appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be
a useful thing to add to an operating system.</p>
@@ -545,6 +553,12 @@
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>
+<p>
+(1) That was written in 1998. In 2009 we no longer maintain a long
+task list. The community develops free software so fast that we can't
+even keep track of it all. Instead, we have a list of High Priority
+Projects, a much shorter list of projects we really want to encourage
+people to write.</p>
<h3>The GNU Library GPL</h3>
<p>
@@ -570,10 +584,10 @@
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>
+free applications. That is why using the Library GPL is a good
+strategy for the C library.</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
+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
@@ -622,7 +636,7 @@
<acronym title="GNU Network Object Model Environment">GNOME</acronym>
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
+replace popular nonfree 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
@@ -632,18 +646,18 @@
<h3>Unexpected developments</h3>
<p>
-At the beginning of the GNU project, I imagined that we would develop
+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
+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
+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
@@ -655,7 +669,7 @@
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
+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
@@ -664,15 +678,15 @@
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
+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
+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
+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
@@ -680,29 +694,29 @@
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
+It did not stay that way. Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main
+developer of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix
to refer to a certain part of the kernel—the part that would trap
-system calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers.</p>
+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
+Later, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name;
+independently, the Hurd design was changed so that the C library would
send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component
disappear from the design.</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>
+name Alix in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her. So
+she did have the chance to find a kernel named after her.</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>
+Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. In 1992, he made Linux
+free software; combining Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system
+resulted in a complete free operating system. (Combining them was a
+substantial job in itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can
+actually run a version of the GNU system today.</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>
@@ -736,7 +750,7 @@
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
+nonfree drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend
extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers?
Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.</p>
<p>
@@ -744,14 +758,14 @@
There is a free BIOS, coreboot; the problem is getting specs
for machines so that coreboot can support them.)</p>
-<h3>Non-free libraries</h3>
+<h3>Nonfree libraries</h3>
<p>
-A non-free library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
+A nonfree library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
for free software developers. The library's attractive features are
the bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system. (Strictly
speaking, we could include your program, but it
-won't <strong>run</strong> with the library missing.) Even worse, if
+won't <em>run</em> 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>
@@ -759,7 +773,7 @@
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
+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>
@@ -788,7 +802,7 @@
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>
+any nonfree software.</p>
<p>
Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
possible to run KDE software without using Qt.</p>
@@ -797,13 +811,13 @@
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
+nonfree. (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it
remains desirable to avoid using Qt.)</p>
<p>
[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU GPL,
which essentially solved this problem.]</p>
<p>
-How will we respond to the next tempting non-free library? Will the
+How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree library? Will the
whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will
many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major
problem? Our future depends on our philosophy.</p>
@@ -815,7 +829,7 @@
years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in
1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper
compressed <acronym title="Graphics Interchange Format">GIF</acronym>s.
-In 1998, a free program to produce
+[As of 2009 they have expired.] In 1998, a free program to produce
<acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3">MP3</acronym> compressed audio
was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.</p>
<p>
@@ -850,7 +864,7 @@
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
+Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, online
and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
program.</p>
<p>
@@ -863,14 +877,14 @@
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>
+conscientious they will change the manual, too—so they can
+provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.
+A nonfree manual, which does not allow programmers to be conscientious
+and finish the job, does not fill our community's needs.</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
+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
@@ -923,11 +937,11 @@
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
+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,
+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
@@ -950,7 +964,7 @@
<h3>Try!</h3>
<p>
-Yoda's philosophy (“There is no ‘try’”) sounds
+Yoda's aphorism (“There is no ‘try’”) sounds
neat, but it doesn't work for me. I have done most of my work while
anxious about whether I could do the job, and unsure that it would be
enough to achieve the goal if I did. But I tried anyway, because
@@ -1001,7 +1015,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman
+Copyright © 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
<br />
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
@@ -1011,7 +1025,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/25 08:16:31 $
+$Date: 2010/06/26 21:13:32 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Jeanne Rasata, 2010/06/24
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Yavor Doganov, 2010/06/25
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html,
Richard M. Stallman <=
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Matt Lee, 2010/06/27
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Matt Lee, 2010/06/27
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Matt Lee, 2010/06/27
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Jeanne Rasata, 2010/06/28
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Jeanne Rasata, 2010/06/28
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Jeanne Rasata, 2010/06/28
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Richard M. Stallman, 2010/06/28
- www/gnu thegnuproject.html, Richard M. Stallman, 2010/06/30