[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy po/shouldbefree.hr.po po/shouldb...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy po/shouldbefree.hr.po po/shouldb... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:58:43 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/08/24 18:58:42
Modified files:
philosophy/po : shouldbefree.hr.po shouldbefree.translist
Added files:
philosophy : shouldbefree.hr.html
philosophy/po : shouldbefree.hr-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.hr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.hr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.hr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: po/shouldbefree.hr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.hr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/shouldbefree.hr.po 24 Aug 2013 18:44:13 -0000 1.1
+++ po/shouldbefree.hr.po 24 Aug 2013 18:58:42 -0000 1.2
@@ -10,12 +10,12 @@
"PO-Revision-Date: 2013-08-24 20:39+0100\n"
"Last-Translator: Martina Bebek <address@hidden>\n"
"Language-Team: GNU Croatian Translation Team <address@hidden>\n"
+"Language: hr\n"
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
"Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n"
"%10<=4 && (n%100<10 || n%100>=20) ? 1 : 2);\n"
-"Language: hr\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 1.5.4\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
@@ -397,8 +397,8 @@
"Razmotrimo na trenutak da je program razvijen i da su svi nužni troškovi za
"
"njegov razvoj plaÄeni; sada druÅ¡tvo treba izabrati hoÄe li ga uÄiniti "
"vlasniÄkim ili dozvoliti slobodno dijeljenje i koriÅ¡tenje. Pretpostavimo da
"
-"je postojanje programa i njegova dostupnost poželjna stvar.<a href="
-"\"#f3\">(3)</a>"
+"je postojanje programa i njegova dostupnost poželjna stvar.<a href=\"#f3\">"
+"(3)</a>"
#. type: Content of: <p>
msgid ""
Index: po/shouldbefree.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- po/shouldbefree.translist 17 May 2013 18:59:21 -0000 1.9
+++ po/shouldbefree.translist 24 Aug 2013 18:58:42 -0000 1.10
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fi" hreflang="fi"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html">suomi</a> [fi]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.fr.html">français</a> [fr]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="he" hreflang="he"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.he.html">×¢×ר×ת</a> [he]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="hr" hreflang="hr"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.hr.html">hrvatski</a> [hr]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="id" hreflang="id"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a> [id]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="nl" hreflang="nl"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="pl" hreflang="pl"
href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</span>
Index: shouldbefree.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: shouldbefree.hr.html
diff -N shouldbefree.hr.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ shouldbefree.hr.html 24 Aug 2013 18:58:42 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,874 @@
+
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+ <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html" -->
+
+<title>Zašto bi softver trebao biti slobodan - Projekt GNU - Zaklada za
slobodan
+softver</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<h2>Zašto bi softver trebao biti slobodan</h2>
+
+<p>
+napisao <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<h3 id="introduction">Uvod</h3>
+<p>
+Postojanje slobodnog softvera neizbježno postavlja pitanje o tome kako bi
+trebalo donositi odluke o njegovom korištenju. Na primjer, pretpostavimo da
+jedna osoba koja ima primjerak nekog programa sretne drugu osobu koja bi
+takoÄer željela primjerak tog programa. U moguÄnosti su kopirati taj
+program; tko bi trebao odluÄiti hoÄe li to i uÄiniti? DotiÄne osobe? Ili
+treÄa strana, koju nazivamo “vlasnikom”?</p>
+<p>
+ Razvijatelji softvera u razmatranju ovih pitanja uglavnom kreÄu od
+pretpostavke da se odgovor temelji na kriteriju najveÄe moguÄe dobiti za
+razvijatelja. PolitiÄka moÄ poslovnih krugova dovela je do toga da vlasti
+usvoje i ovaj kriterij i odgovor kojeg su predložili razvijatelji: da
+program ima vlasnika, tipiÄno neku korporaciju povezanu s njegovim
razvojem.</p>
+<p>
+ Želio bih isto pitanje razmotriti na temelju drugaÄijeg kriterija:
napretka
+i slobode javnosti opÄenito.</p>
+<p>
+ Odgovor na ovo ne može nam dati trenutni zakon—zakon bi trebao biti
+prilagoÄen etici, a ne obratno. Odluku o tom pitanju ne može donijeti ni
+trenutna praksa, premda bi mogla predložiti moguÄe odgovore. Jedini naÄin na
+koji se može donijeti odluka je pogledati na Äiju je korist i na Äiju Å¡tetu
+priznavanje vlasništva nad softverom, zašto i u kojoj mjeri. Drugim
+rijeÄima, trebali bismo izvrÅ¡iti analizu odnosa cijene i dobrobiti za
+druÅ¡tvo kao cjelinu, uzimajuÄi u obzir osobnu slobodu kao i proizvodnju
+materijalnih dobara.</p>
+<p>
+ U ovom eseju opisat Äu uÄinak vlasniÅ¡tva i pokazati da je takav ishod
+Å¡tetan. Moj zakljuÄak je da programeri imaju dužnost poticati druge da
+dijele, dalje distribuiraju, prouÄavaju i poboljÅ¡avaju softver kojeg piÅ¡u:
+drugim rijeÄima, da piÅ¡u <a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“slobodan” softver</a>.<a
+href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
+
+<h3 id="owner-justification">Kako vlasnici opravdavaju svoju moÄ</h3>
+<p>
+ Oni koji imaju koristi od sadašnjeg sustava, u kojem programi predstavljaju
+imovinu, iznose dva razloga kojima podupiru svoje zahtjeve za vlasništvom
+nad programima: emocionalni razlog i ekonomski razlog.</p>
+<p>
+ Emocionalni razlog glasi ovako: “Ulažem svoj znoj, svoje srce i
dušu u
+ovaj program. Njega stvaram <em>ja</em>, on je <em>moj</em>!”</p>
+<p>
+ Ovaj razlog ne zahtijeva ozbiljno pobijanje. OsjeÄaj privrženosti je
osjeÄaj
+kojeg programeri mogu njegovati kad im odgovara; nije
+neizbježan. Pogledajmo, na primjer, koliko rado isti ti programeri za plaÄu
+uobiÄajeno prepiÅ¡u sva prava na neku veliku korporaciju; emocionalna
+privrženost tajnovito nestane. Suprotno tome, pogledajmo kako veliki
+umjetnici srednjeg vijeka nisu stavljali na svoja djela ni svoje ime. Njima
+ime umjetnika nije bilo važno. Ono što je bilo važno je to da je djelo bilo
+napravljeno—i svrha kojoj Äe služiti. To glediÅ¡te prevladavalo je
+stoljeÄima.</p>
+<p>
+ Ekonomski razlog glasi ovako: “Želim se obogatiti (obiÄno neprecizno
+opisano kao ‘zaraditi za život’), a ako mi ne dozvolite da se
+obogatim programiranjem, onda neÄu programirati. Svi drugi su kao i ja,
+dakle nitko nikada neÄe programirati. Stoga neÄete uopÄe imati
+programa!” Ova je prijetnja obiÄno umotana kao prijateljski savjet
+mudrih.</p>
+<p>
+ Kasnije Äu objasniti zaÅ¡to je ova prijetnja varka. Najprije se želim
+pozabaviti implicitnom pretpostavkom koja je vidljivija u drugaÄijem izboru
+rijeÄi kojima se izražava ovaj razlog.</p>
+<p>
+ Ovaj izraz zapoÄinje usporedbom druÅ¡tvene korisnosti vlasniÄkog programa
s
+onim kada nemamo nikakvog programa, a zatim zakljuÄuje da ja razvoj
+vlasniÄkog softvera, u cjelini, koristan i da bi ga trebalo
+poticati. Zabluda je ovdje u usporedbi samo dva ishoda—situaciji s
+vlasniÄkim softverom nasuprot situaciji bez ikakvog softvera—i
+pretpostavljanja da ne postoje druge moguÄnosti.</p>
+<p>
+ U sustavu softverskih autorskih prava, razvoj softvera se obiÄno povezuje s
+postojanjem vlasnika koji kontrolira korištenje softvera. Sve dok ta veza
+postoji, Äesto smo suoÄeni s izborom izmeÄu vlasniÄkog softvera i
+niÄega. MeÄutim, ova veza nije nerazdvojiva niti neizbježna; ona je
+posljedica odreÄene druÅ¡tveno-pravne politiÄke odluke koju preispitujemo:
+odluke da postoje vlasnici. Izražavanje izbora kao ovog izmeÄu vlasniÄkog
+softvera nasuprot nikakvom softveru vapi za preispitivanjem. </p>
+
+<h3 id="against-having-owners">Argument protiv postojanja vlasnika</h3>
+<p>
+ Pitanje koje se nameÄe je “Treba li razvoj softvera biti povezan s
+postojanjem vlasnika koji ograniÄavaju njegovo koriÅ¡tenje?”</p>
+<p>
+ Da bismo donijeli odluku o ovome, moramo procijeniti kakav uÄinak na
društvo
+ima svaka od ovih dviju radnji <em>neovisno jedna o drugoj</em>: uÄinak
+razvijanja softvera (neovisno o njegovim uvjetima distribucije) i uÄinak
+ograniÄavanja njegovog koriÅ¡tenja (pretpostavljajuÄi da je softver veÄ
+razvijen). Ako je jedna od ovih radnji korisna, a druga je Å¡tetna, bilo bi
+bolje da ih razdvojimo i Äinimo samo onu korisnu.</p>
+<p>
+ DrugaÄije reÄeno, ako je ograniÄavanje distribuiranja programa koji je
veÄ
+razvijen Å¡tetno za druÅ¡tvo opÄenito, tada Äe etiÄki razvijatelj softvera
+odbaciti moguÄnost da to Äini.</p>
+<p>
+ Da bismo odredili uÄinak ograniÄavanja dijeljenja, trebamo usporediti
+vrijednost za druÅ¡tvo koju ima ograniÄeni (tj. vlasniÄki) program s onom
+vrijednoÅ¡Äu koju ima isti takav program koji je dostupan svima. Ta znaÄi
+usporediti dva moguÄa svijeta.</p>
+<p>
+ Ova analiza takoÄer rjeÅ¡ava i jednostavan protuargument, koji se ponekad
+iznosi, da je “korist koju ima susjed kojem damo kopiju nekog programa
+poniÅ¡tena Å¡tetom uÄinjenom vlasniku.” Ovaj protuargument pretpostavlja
+da su i Å¡teta i korist jednako velike. Analiza ukljuÄuje usporedbu ovih
+veliÄina, te pokazuje da je korist mnogo veÄa.</p>
+<p>
+ Da rasvijetlimo ovaj argument, primijenimo ga na drugo podruÄje: izgradnju
+ceste.</p>
+<p>
+ Bilo bi moguÄe financirati izgradnju svih cesta naplatom cestarine. To bi
+zahtijevalo da imamo naplatne kuÄice na svim raskrižjima. Takav bi sustav
+pružio velik poticaj za poboljÅ¡avanje cesta. Imao bi takoÄer i svojstvo
+uzrokovanja da korisnici bilo koje ceste plaÄaju za tu cestu. MeÄutim,
+naplatna kuÄica je umjetna prepreka glatkom odvijanju prometa—umjetna,
+jer nije posljedica toga kako ceste ili automobili funkcioniraju. </p>
+<p>
+ UsporeÄujuÄi slobodne ceste i ceste s naplatom cestarine, otkrivamo da su
+(ako je sve ostalo jednako) ceste bez naplatnih kuÄica jeftinije za
+izgradnju, jeftinije za upravljanje, sigurnije i uÄinkovitije.<a
+href="#f2">(2)</a> U siromaÅ¡noj zemlji, cestarine mogu uÄiniti ceste
+nedostupne mnogim graÄanima. Ceste bez naplatnih kuÄica stoga nude viÅ¡e
+dobrobiti društvu za nižu cijenu; bolje su za društvo. Stoga, društvo bi
+trebalo odabrati financirati ceste na drugaÄiji naÄin, a ne naplatnim
+kuÄicama. KoriÅ¡tenje cesta, jednom kad su izgraÄene, mora biti slobodno.</p>
+<p>
+ Kada zagovornici naplatnih kuÄica predlažu njihovo koriÅ¡tenje
<em>samo</em>
+kao naÄin prikupljanja sredstava, oni iskrivljuju izbor koji je
+dostupan. Naplatne kuÄice zaista prikupljaju sredstva, no Äine i neÅ¡to
+drugo: u suštini, one degradiraju cestu. Cesta s naplatom cestarine nije
+tako dobra kao slobodna cesta; dobivanje tehniÄki savrÅ¡enijih cesta ne mora
+biti poboljÅ¡anje ako to znaÄi zamjenjivanje slobodnih cesta onima s naplatom
+cestarine.</p>
+<p>
+ Naravno, izgradnja slobodne ceste ipak košta, što javnost mora nekako
+platiti. MeÄutim, to ne podrazumijeva neizbježnost naplatnih kuÄica. Mi,
+koji ionako moramo platiti, dobit Äemo viÅ¡e za naÅ¡ novac kupujuÄi slobodnu
+cestu.</p>
+<p>
+ Ne kažem da je loÅ¡ije imati cestu s naplatom cestarine nego uopÄe ne
imati
+cestu. To bi bila istina kada bi cestarina bila toliko visoka da bi rijetko
+tko mogao koristiti tu cestu—no to nije naroÄito vjerojatna politika
+onih koji naplaÄuju cestarine. MeÄutim, dokle god naplatne kuÄice uzrokuju
+znaÄajno rasipanje i neugodnost, bolje je skupiti novÄana sredstva na manje
+ometajuÄi naÄin.</p>
+<p>
+ Kako bih primijenio isti argument na razvoj softvera, sada Äu pokazati da
+postojanje “naplatnih kuÄica” za korisne softverske programe
+druÅ¡tvo skupo stoji: to Äini programe skupljima za izradu, skupljima za
+distribuciju i manje ugodnima i uÄinkovitima za koriÅ¡tenje. Iz toga slijedi
+da izradu programa treba poticati na neki drugi naÄin. Zato Äu objasniti
+druge naÄine poticanja i (do mjere koja je potrebna) financiranja razvoja
+softvera.</p>
+
+<h4 id="harm-done">Å teta koju nanosi opstrukcija softvera</h4>
+<p>
+ Razmotrimo na trenutak da je program razvijen i da su svi nužni troškovi
za
+njegov razvoj plaÄeni; sada druÅ¡tvo treba izabrati hoÄe li ga uÄiniti
+vlasniÄkim ili dozvoliti slobodno dijeljenje i koriÅ¡tenje. Pretpostavimo da
+je postojanje programa i njegova dostupnost poželjna stvar.<a
+href="#f3">(3)</a></p>
+<p>
+ OgraniÄenja distribucije i mijenjanja programa ne mogu olakÅ¡ati njegovo
+koriÅ¡tenje. Oni mogu samo stvarati smetnju. UÄinak stoga može biti samo
+negativan. No, koliko? I kakve vrste?</p>
+<p>
+ Tri razliÄite razine materijalne Å¡tete dolaze od takve opstrukcije:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Manje ljudi koristi program.</li>
+
+<li>Nitko od korisnika ne može prilagoditi ili ispraviti program.</li>
+
+<li>Drugi razvijatelji ne mogu uÄiti iz programa niti temeljiti novo djelo na
+njemu.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Svaka razina materijalne Å¡tete ima prateÄi oblik psihosocijalne Å¡tete.
Ovo
+se odnosi na posljedice koje ljudske odluke imaju na njihove buduÄe
+osjeÄaje, stavove i sklonosti. Ove promjene u naÄinu razmiÅ¡ljanja ljudi Äe
+zatim imati daljnje posljedice na njihove odnose sa sugraÄanima, a mogu
+imati i materijalne posljedice.</p>
+<p>
+ Ove tri razine materijalne Å¡tete rasipaju dio vrijednosti kojom je program
+mogao doprinijeti, no ne mogu je potpuno poništiti. Ukoliko rasipaju gotovo
+svu vrijednost programa, onda pisanje programa nanosi štetu društvu
+maksimalno u visini truda uloženog u pisanje programa. Nedvojbeno, program
+koji je profitabilan za prodaju mora pružiti neku izravnu materijalnu
+korist.</p>
+<p>
+ MeÄutim, uzimajuÄi u obzir prateÄu psihosocijalnu Å¡tetu, nema granica
Å¡teti
+koju razvoj vlasniÄkog softvera može uÄiniti.</p>
+
+<h4 id="obstructing-use">Opstrukcija korištenja programa</h4>
+<p>
+ Prva razina štete ometa jednostavno korištenje programa. Trošak kopije
+programa je gotovo nula (a taj posao možete platiti i tako da ga sami
+odradite), stoga bi na slobodnom tržištu imao cijenu blizu nuli. Naknada za
+autorska prava djeluje znaÄajno destimulirajuÄe na koriÅ¡tenje programa. Ako
+je neki Å¡iroko koriÅ¡ten program vlasniÄki, daleko manje ljudi Äe ga
+koristiti.</p>
+<p>
+ Lako je pokazati da je ukupan doprinos programa društvu umanjen ako mu se
+odredi vlasnik. Svaki potencijalni korisnik programa, suoÄen s potrebom da
+plati za njegovo koriÅ¡tenje, može izabrati plaÄanje ili se može odreÄi
+korištenja programa. Kada korisnik odabere platiti, vrijednost prijenosa
+dobara izmeÄu dviju strana je nula. No svaki put kada netko izabere odreÄi
+se korištenja programa, to šteti toj osobi, a ne donosi dobrobit
+nikome. Zbroj negativnih vrijednosti s nulama mora biti negativan.</p>
+<p>
+ No to ne umanjuje koliÄinu rada koja je potrebna za <em>razvoj</em>
+programa. Kao posljedica, uÄinkovitost cijelog procesa, mjerena
+zadovoljstvom korisnika u odnosu na sat rada, smanjena je.</p>
+<p>
+ Ovo odražava presudnu razliku izmeÄu kopija programa i automobila, stolica
+ili sendviÄa. Izvan znanstveno-fantastiÄne literature ne postoji ureÄaj za
+kopiranje materijalnih objekata. No programe je jednostavno kopirati; svatko
+može proizvesti koliko god kopija je potrebno, uz vrlo malo truda. To ne
+vrijedi za materijalne objekte zbog zakona o oÄuvanju materije: svaka nova
+kopija mora biti izraÄena od sirovina na isti naÄin na koji je izraÄena i
+prva kopija.</p>
+<p>
+ Kod materijalnih objekata, destimuliranje korištenja ima smisla, jer manje
+kupljenih objekata znaÄi i manje sirovina i rada potrebnih da bi ih se
+izradilo. Istina je da postoji i poÄetni troÅ¡ak, troÅ¡ak razvoja, koji se
+rasporeÄuje na koliÄinu proizvodnje. No sve dok je graniÄni troÅ¡ak
+proizvodnje znaÄajan, dodavanje dijela troÅ¡ka razvoja ne Äini kvalitativnu
+razliku. Isto tako ne zahtijeva ograniÄenja slobode obiÄnih korisnika.</p>
+<p>
+ MeÄutim, nametanje cijene na neÅ¡to Å¡to bi inaÄe bilo besplatno
kvalitativna
+je promjena. Središnje nametnuta naknada za distribuciju softvera postaje
+snažno destimulirajuÄa.</p>
+<p>
+ Å toviÅ¡e, srediÅ¡nja proizvodnja kakva se sada prakticira neuÄinkovita je
Äak
+i kao sredstvo isporuke primjeraka softvera. Ovaj sustav ukljuÄuje
+stavljanje fiziÄkih diskova ili kaseta u suviÅ¡na pakiranja, slanje velikog
+broja njih oko svijeta i njihovog skladištenja za prodaju. Ovaj trošak
+prikazan je kao rashod u poslovanju; istina je zapravo da je to dio
+rasipanja uzrokovanog vlasništvom.</p>
+
+<h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion">Nanošenje štete društvenoj koheziji</h4>
+<p>
+ Pretpostavimo da biste i vi i vaš susjed smatrali korisnim upotrebljavati
+odreÄeni program. Iz etiÄke brige za vaÅ¡eg susjeda, trebali biste osjeÄati
+da Äe ispravno upravljanje situacijom omoguÄiti obojici da ga
+koristite. Zahtjev da se korištenje programa dozvoli samo jednom od vas, a
+sprijeÄi drugom, razdorna je; ni vi niti vaÅ¡ susjed ne biste ga trebali
+smatrati prihvatljivim.</p>
+<p>
+ PrihvaÄanje tipiÄnog softverskog licenÄnog ugovora znaÄi izdaju vaÅ¡eg
+susjeda: “ObeÄajem liÅ¡iti svojeg susjeda ovog programa kako bih mogao
+imati kopiju za sebe.” Ljudi koji Äine ovakve izbore osjeÄaju
+unutarnji psihološki pritisak da ih opravdaju, umanjivanjem važnosti
+pomaganja svojem susjedu—stoga trpi javni duh. Ovo je psiholoÅ¡ka Å¡teta
+udružena s materijalnom štetom kao posljedice destimuliranja korištenja
+programa.</p>
+<p>
+ Mnogi korisnici nesvjesno prepoznaju nepravdu odbijanja dijeljenja, stoga
+odluÄuju zanemariti licence i zakone i ipak dijeliti programe. No, Äesto
+zbog toga osjeÄaju krivnju. Znaju da moraju krÅ¡iti zakone kako bi bili dobri
+susjedi, ali i dalje zakone smatraju mjerodavnima, pa zakljuÄuju da je biti
+dobar susjed (Å¡to oni i jesu) neÅ¡to nevaljano i sramotno. To je takoÄer
+vrsta psihosocijalne Å¡tete, no može se izbjeÄi odlukom da ove licence i
+zakoni nemaju moralne vrijednosti.</p>
+<p>
+ Programeri isto tako trpe psihosocijalnu Å¡tetu znajuÄi da mnogim
korisnicima
+neÄe biti dozvoljeno koriÅ¡tenje njihovog rada. To dovodi do ciniÄnog stava
+ili do poricanja. Programer može oduševljeno opisivati rad koji smatra
+tehniÄki uzbudljivim; zatim, ako ga upitamo “HoÄu li ga smjeti
+koristiti?”, raspoloženje mu splasne i priznaje da je odgovor ne. Kako
+bi izbjegao osjeÄaj obeshrabrenosti, ili Äe veÄinu vremena ignorirati ovu
+Äinjenicu ili Äe usvojiti ciniÄan stav osmiÅ¡ljen kako bi umanjio njenu
+važnost.</p>
+<p>
+ Od vremena Reagana, najveÄa nestaÅ¡ica u Sjedinjenim državama nisu
tehniÄke
+inovacije, veÄ volja da se zajedno radi za javno dobro. Nema smisla poticati
+prvo na Å¡tetu ovog drugog.</p>
+
+<h4 id="custom-adaptation">Opstrukcija vlastite prilagodbe programa</h4>
+<p>
+ Druga razina materijalne Å¡tete nemoguÄnost je prilagodbe programa. LakoÄa
+mijenjanja softvera jedna je od velikih prednosti nad starijom
+tehnologijom. No, veÄinu komercijalno dostupnog softvera nije moguÄe
+izmijeniti, Äak i nakon Å¡to ga kupite. Možete ga uzeti ili ostaviti, kao
+crnu kutiju—to je sve.</p>
+<p>
+ Program kojeg možete pokretati sastoji se od nizova brojeva Äije je
znaÄenje
+nerazgovjetno. Nitko, Äak ni dobar programer, ne može jednostavno izmijeniti
+brojeve kako bi program radio nešto drugo.</p>
+<p>
+ Programeri uobiÄajeno rade s “izvornim kodom” programa, koji je
+pisan u nekom programskom jeziku kao Å¡to je Fortran ili C. Programski jezik
+koristi imena kako bi se oznaÄili podaci koji se koriste i dijelovi
+programa, a operacije predstavlja simbolima kao Å¡to su ‘+’ za
+zbrajanje i ‘-’ za oduzimanje. OsmiÅ¡ljen je kako bi pomogao
+programerima Äitati i mijenjati programe. Ovdje je jedan primjer, program za
+izraÄun udaljenosti izmeÄu dvije toÄke u ravnini:</p>
+
+<pre>
+ float
+ distance (p0, p1)
+ struct point p0, p1;
+ {
+ float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
+ float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
+ return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
+ }
+</pre>
+<p>
+ Å to konkretno izvorni kod predstavlja nije bitno; bitno je da izgleda kao
+algebra, a osobi koja poznaje programski jezik bit Äe smislen i
+jasan. Suprotno tome, ovdje je isti taj program u izvršnom obliku, na
+raÄunalu koje sam koristio kada sam ovo pisao:
+</p>
+
+<pre>
+ 1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862
+ 1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208
+ -234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424
+ 1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495
+ 572518958 -803143692 1314803317
+</pre>
+
+<p>
+ Izvorni kod je (barem potencijalno) koristan svakom korisniku programa. No,
+veÄini korisnika nije dozvoljeno imati kopije izvornog koda. Izvorni kod
+vlasniÄkog programa vlasnik uglavnom drži u tajnosti, da netko iz njega ne
+bi neÅ¡to nauÄio. Korisnici dobivaju samo datoteke s nerazumljivim brojevima
+koje Äe raÄunalo izvrÅ¡avati. To znaÄi da samo vlasnik programa može
+izmijeniti program.</p>
+<p>
+ Prijateljica mi je jednom priÄala kako je oko Å¡est mjeseci radila kao
+programer u jednoj banci, piÅ¡uÄi program sliÄan neÄem Å¡to je bilo
+komercijalno dostupno. Bila je uvjerena da bi, kada bi mogla dobiti izvorni
+kod tog komercijalno dostupnog programa, on mogao biti lako prilagoÄen
+njihovim potrebama. Banka je to bila voljna platiti, ali nije joj bilo
+dozvoljeno—izvorni kod bio je tajan. Tako joj je bilo potrebno Å¡est
+mjeseci nepotrebnog rada, rada koji se ubraja u BDP no zapravo je uzaludan.</p>
+<p>
+ Xerox je oko 1977. godine laboratoriju za umjetnu inteligenciju (AI Lab)
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>-a poklonio
+grafiÄki pisaÄ. Pokretao ga je slobodan softver kojem smo dodali mnogo
+zgodnih moguÄnosti. Na primjer, softver bi odmah po zavrÅ¡etku ispisa
+obavijestio korisnika o tome. Svaki put kada je pisaÄ imao neki problem, kao
+što je zastoj papira ili potrošen sav papir, softver bi odmah obavijestio
+sve korisnike Äiji ispis je bio na Äekanju. Ove su odlike olakÅ¡avale rad bez
+zastoja.</p>
+<p>
+ Kasnije je Xerox dao AI Labu noviji, brži pisaÄ, jedan od prvih laserskih
+pisaÄa. Pogonio ga je vlasniÄki softver koji je radio na odvojenom
+namjenskom raÄunalu, tako da nismo mogli dodati ni jednu od naÅ¡ih omiljenih
+moguÄnosti. Mogli smo urediti da se Å¡alje obavijest o slanju ispisa na
+namjensko raÄunalo, ali ne i obavijest kada je ispis zavrÅ¡en (a vremenski
+razmak izmeÄu tih dviju radnji bio je znaÄajan). Nije postojao naÄin na koji
+bismo mogli doznati kada je ispis zapravo dovršen, mogli smo samo
+pretpostavljati. Isto tako nitko nije bio obaviješten o zastoju papira, tako
+da je Äesto prolazio i sat vremena prije nego je problem bio otklonjen.</p>
+<p>
+ Programeri sustava u AI Labu bili su sposobni takve probleme otkloniti,
+vjerojatno jednako sposobni kao i sami autori tog programa. Xerox nije bio
+zainteresiran za njihovo otklanjanje, a odabrali su da i nas sprijeÄe u
+tome, tako da smo bili prisiljeni prihvatiti te probleme, koji nikada nisu
+bili riješeni.</p>
+<p>
+ VeÄina dobrih programera iskusila je ovu frustraciju. Banka si je mogla
+priuÅ¡titi pisanje novog programa od poÄetka, no tipiÄan korisnik, bez obzira
+koliko vješt bio, može samo odustati od toga.</p>
+<p>
+ Odustajanje uzrokuje psihosocijalnu Å¡tetu—duhu
+samopouzdanja. DemoralizirajuÄe je živjeti u kuÄi koju ne možete preurediti
+kako bi odgovarala vašim potrebama. To dovodi do rezignacije i
+obeshrabrenja, koje se može proÅ¡iriti i utjecati na druge aspekte neÄijeg
+života. Ljudi koji se ovako osjeÄaju nesretni su i ne rade dobro.</p>
+<p>
+ Zamislite kako bi bilo da se receptima Å¡krtari na naÄin na koji se to
Äini
+sa softverom. Mogli biste reÄi “Kako da promijenim ovaj recept kako
+bih izbacio sol?”, a glavni kuhar bi odgovorio “Kako se
+usuÄujete vrijeÄati moj recept, plod mojeg uma i nepca, pokuÅ¡avajuÄi
+petljati po njemu? Nemate dovoljno znanja da izmijenite moj recept, a da on
+nakon toga bude ispravan!”</p>
+<p>
+ “Ali moj lijeÄnik kaže da ne smijem jesti sol! Å to da uÄinim?
HoÄete
+li mi vi ukloniti sol?”</p>
+<p>
+ “Rado bih to uÄinio; moja naknada je samo 50 000 dolara.”
+BuduÄi da vlasnik ima monopol na izmjene, naknada ima tendenciju biti
+visoka. “MeÄutim, trenutno nemam vremena. Zauzet sam narudžbom da
+osmislim novi recept za brodski kolaÄ za Ministarstvo pomorstva. Bit Äu u
+moguÄnosti posvetiti vam se za približno dvije godine.”</p>
+
+<h4 id="software-development">Opstruiranje razvoja softvera</h4>
+<p>
+ TreÄa razina materijalne Å¡tete pogaÄa razvoj softvera. Razvoj softvera je
+bio evolucijski proces, gdje bi neka osoba uzela neki postojeÄi program i
+ponovno napisala neke njegove dijelove za jedan moguÄi ishod, zatim bi druga
+osoba ponovno napisala neke dijelove kako bi dodala drugi moguÄi ishod; u
+nekim sluÄajevima, to bi se nastavljalo kroz vremenski period od dvadeset
+godina. U meÄuvremenu, dijelovi programa bili bi
+“kanibalizirani” kako bi Äinili poÄetak nekih drugih
programa.</p>
+<p>
+ Postojanje vlasnika spreÄava ovakvu evoluciju, ÄineÄi nužnim poÄinjanje
+ispoÄetka kada se razvija neki program. Ono takoÄer spreÄava nove
vježbenike
+u prouÄavanju postojeÄih programa kako bi nauÄili korisne tehnike ili Äak i
+naÄin na koji se veliki programi mogu izgraÄivati.</p>
+<p>
+ Vlasnici isto tako ometaju obrazovanje. Sreo sam sjajne studente raÄunalnih
+znanosti koji nikada nisu vidjeli izvorni kod nekog velikog programa. Mogu
+biti dobri u pisanju malih programa, ali ne mogu poÄeti uÄiti razliÄite
+vjeÅ¡tine pisana velikih programa ako ne mogu vidjeti kako su to uÄinili
+drugi.</p>
+<p>
+ U bilo kojem intelektualnom podruÄju, Äovjek može doseÄi veÄe visine
stojeÄi
+na ramenima drugih. No to uglavnom viÅ¡e nije dozvoljeno u podruÄju
+softvera—možete stajati samo na ramenima drugih ljudi <em>iz vaÅ¡e
+tvrtke</em>.</p>
+<p>
+ Pridružena psihosocijalna Å¡teta utjeÄe na duh znanstvene suradnje, koji
je
+obiÄavao biti toliko jak da bi znanstvenici suraÄivali Äak i kada su njihove
+zemlje bile u ratu. U tom duhu, japanski oceanografi koji su napustili svoj
+laboratorij na jednom otoku u Pacifiku pažljivo su saÄuvali svoj rad za
+osvajaÄke marince Sjedinjenih Država i ostavili im poruku da se dobro
+pobrinu za njega.</p>
+<p>
+ Sukob za profit razorio je ono Å¡to je meÄunarodni sukob poÅ¡tedio. Danas
+znanstvenici iz mnogih podruÄja ne objavljuju u svojim Älancima dovoljno da
+bi omoguÄili drugima da ponove pokus. Objavljuju samo toliko koliko je
+dovoljno da omoguÄi Äitateljima da se dive koliko su ovi uspjeli
+napraviti. Ovo je svakako istina u raÄunalnoj znanosti, gdje je izvorni kod
+programa o kojem se izvještava uglavnom tajan.</p>
+
+<h4 id="does-not-matter-how">Nije važno kako je dijeljenje ograniÄeno</h4>
+<p>
+ Raspravljao sam o uÄincima spreÄavanja ljudi da kopiraju, mijenjaju i
+doraÄuju program. Nisam odredio kako se to ometanje provodi, jer to ne
+utjeÄe na zakljuÄak. Bilo da se to radi zaÅ¡titom od kopiranja, autorskim
+pravima, licencama, Å¡ifriranjem, <acronym title="Read-only
+Memory">ROM</acronym> karticama ili hardverskim serijskim brojevima, ako
+<em>uspije</em> sprijeÄiti koriÅ¡tenje, nanosi Å¡tetu.</p>
+<p>
+ Korisnici smatraju neke od ovih metoda odvratnijima od drugih. Predlažem da
+su najmrskije one metode koje postižu svoj cilj.</p>
+
+<h4 id="should-be-free">Softver treba biti slobodan</h4>
+<p>
+ Pokazao sam kako je vlasniÅ¡tvo nad programom—moÄ ograniÄavanja
+njegovog mijenjanja ili kopiranja—ometajuÄe. Njegovi negativni uÄinci
+široko su rasprostranjeni i važni. Iz toga slijedi da društvo ne bi smjelo
+imati vlasnike programa.</p>
+<p>
+ Drugi naÄin da se ovo shvati je da je slobodan softver ono Å¡to je druÅ¡tvu
+potrebno, dok je vlasniÄki softver slab nadomjestak za to. Poticanje tog
+nadomjestka nije racionalan naÄin dobivanja onoga Å¡to nam je potrebno.</p>
+<p>
+ Vaclav Havel nas je savjetovao da “radimo za neÅ¡to zato Å¡to je to
+dobro, a ne samo zato Å¡to ima izgleda uspjeti.” Tvrtka koja proizvodi
+vlasniÄki softver ima izgleda uspjeti u svojim uskim uvjetima, no to nije
+nešto što je dobro za društvo.</p>
+
+<h3 id="why-develop">ZaÅ¡to Äe ljudi razvijati softver</h3>
+<p>
+ Ako uklonimo autorska prava kao naÄin poticanja ljudi da razvijaju softver,
+isprva Äe se razvijati manje softvera, ali Äe taj softver biti
+korisniji. Nije jasno hoÄe li ukupno zadovoljstvo korisnika biti manje; no
+ako bude, ili ako ga budemo željeli poveÄati, postoje i drugi naÄini
+poticanja razvoja, jednako kao Å¡to postoje i drugi naÄini osim naplatnih
+kuÄica na koje se može prikupiti novac za ceste. Prije nego Å¡to poÄnem
+govoriti o tome kako se to može uÄiniti, želim provjeriti koliko je umjetnog
+poticaja istinski potrebno.</p>
+
+<h4 id="fun">Programiranje je zabavno</h4>
+<p>
+ Postoje neka zanimanja za koje Äe se rijetki opredijeliti, osim zbog novca;
+na primjer, izgradnja cesta. Postoje druga podruÄja istraživanja i
+umjetnosti u kojima nema velike moguÄnosti da se postane bogat, za koje se
+ljudi opredjeljuju zbog svojeg zanosa ili njihove vrijednosti za
+druÅ¡tvo. Primjeri ukljuÄuju matematiÄku logiku, klasiÄnu glazbu i
+arheologiju, te politiÄko organiziranje meÄu radnicima. Ljudi se natjeÄu,
+viÅ¡e tužno nego žestoko, za tih nekoliko dostupnih plaÄenih namjeÅ¡tenja,
od
+kojih nijedno nije naroÄito dobro plaÄeno. Postoji moguÄnost da Äak i plate
+za priliku da rade u odreÄenom podruÄju, ako si to mogu priuÅ¡titi.</p>
+<p>
+ Takvo se podruÄje može preko noÄi preobraziti ako poÄne nuditi
moguÄnost
+bogaÄenja. Kada se jedan radnik obogati, ostali zahtijevaju istu
+priliku. Uskoro svi mogu zahtijevati veliku koliÄinu novca da bi radili ono
+Å¡to su do tada radili iz zadovoljstva. Nakon nekoliko godina, svatko povezan
+s tim podruÄjem rada s podsmijehom Äe gledati na pomisao da u tom podruÄju
+neÅ¡to radi bez velike financijske koristi. Savjetovat Äe druÅ¡tvene planere
+da osiguraju takvu financijsku korist, propisujuÄi posebne povlastice, moÄi
+i monopol koji su potrebni za to.</p>
+<p>
+ Ova se promjena dogodila u podruÄju raÄunalnog programiranja osamdesetih
+godina dvadesetog stoljeÄa. U sedamdesetim godinama su se pojavili Älanci o
+“raÄunalnom ovisniÅ¡tvu”: korisnici su bili “online”
+i troÅ¡ili na to velik novac. OpÄenito se smatralo da ljudi Äesto vole
+programiranje dovoljno snažno da uniÅ¡te svoj brak. Danas se opÄenito smatra
+da nitko ne bi želio programirati, osim za veliku plaÄu. Ljudi su zaboravili
+ono Å¡to su prije znali.</p>
+<p>
+ Ako je u nekom trenutku istina da Äe veÄina ljudi raditi u odreÄenom
+podruÄju jedino za visoku plaÄu, ne mora tako i ostati. Dinamika promjene
+može iÄi i unatrag, ako druÅ¡tvo osigura poticaj. Ako uklonimo moguÄnost
+velikog bogatstva, tada Äe nakon nekog vremena, kada ljudi prilagode svoje
+stavove, ponovno biti željni rada u tom podruÄju radi zadovoljstva zbog
+postignuÄa.</p>
+<p>
+ Pitanje “Kako da platimo programere?” postaje lakÅ¡e kada
+shvatimo da se ne radi o tome da im platimo cijelo bogatstvo. Lakše je
+jednostavno osigurati im dobar život.</p>
+
+<h4 id="funding">Financiranje slobodnog softvera</h4>
+<p>
+ Ustanove koje plaÄaju programere ne moraju biti softverske kuÄe. Mnoge
druge
+ustanove koje to mogu raditi veÄ postoje.</p>
+<p>
+ Za proizvoÄaÄe hardvera je bitno da podržavaju razvoj softvera Äak i
ako ne
+mogu kontrolirati korištenje softvera. Godine 1970. mnogo je njihovog
+softvera bilo slobodno jer nisu razmatrali njegovo ograniÄavanje. Danas
+svojom sklonoÅ¡Äu pridruživanja konzorcijima pokazuju svoje shvaÄanje da
+posjedovanje softvera nije nešto što im je uistinu važno.</p>
+<p>
+ SveuÄiliÅ¡ta provode mnoge softverske projekte. Danas Äesto prodaju svoje
+rezultate, ali 1970. to nisu Äinili. Postoji li ikakva sumnja u to da bi
+sveuÄiliÅ¡ta razvijala slobodan softver ako im ne bi bilo dopuÅ¡teno prodavati
+softver? Ove bi se projekte moglo podržavati istim vladinim ugovorima i
+stipendijama kojima se sada podržava razvoj vlasniÄkog softvera.</p>
+<p>
+ Danas je uobiÄajeno da sveuÄiliÅ¡ni istraživaÄi dobiju stipendije za
razvoj
+sustava, razviju ga gotovo do kraja i nazovu ga “dovrÅ¡enim”, a
+zatim osnuju tvrtke gdje zaista dovrÅ¡e projekt i uÄine ga
+upotrebljivim. Ponekad nedovrÅ¡enu verziju proglase “slobodnom”;
+ako su pokvareni do srži, umjesto toga od sveuÄiliÅ¡ta zatraže ekskluzivnu
+licencu. To nije tajna: otvoreno je priznaju svi kojih se tiÄe. No kada
+istraživaÄi ne bi bili izloženi iskuÅ¡enju da Äine ove stvari, ipak bi i
+dalje radili svoja istraživanja. </p>
+<p>
+ Programeri koji piÅ¡u slobodan softver mogu za život zaraÄivati prodajom
+usluga povezanih s tim softverom. Bio sam plaÄen da prenesem <a
+href="/software/gcc/">GNU-ov prevodilac za jezik C</a> na novi hardver i da
+izradim dodatke korisniÄkog suÄelja za <a href="/software/emacs/">GNU-ov
+Emacs</a>. (Ta poboljÅ¡anja, kada su gotova, nudim javnosti.) TakoÄer držim i
+predavanja za koja sam plaÄen.</p>
+<p>
+ Nisam sam u ovome naÄinu rada, sada postoji uspjeÅ¡na, rastuÄa korporacija
+koja ne radi nikakvu drugu vrstu posla. Više drugih tvrtki isto tako pružaju
+komercijalnu podrÅ¡ku za slobodan softver sustava GNU. To je zaÄetak
+gospodarske grane za neovisnu softversku podrÅ¡ku—gospodarske grane
+koja bi mogla postati priliÄno velika ukoliko slobodan softver postane
+dominantan. To korisnicima pruža moguÄnost koja, osim za one vrlo bogate,
+uglavnom nije dostupna kod vlasniÄkog softvera.</p>
+<p>
+ Nove ustanove kao Å¡to je <a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Zaklada za slobodan
+softver</a> takoÄer mogu financirati programere. VeÄina novÄanih sredstava
+Zaklade dolazi od korisnika koji poštom kupuju magnetske trake. Softver na
+trakama je slobodan, Å¡to znaÄi da svaki korisnik ima slobodu kopirati ga i
+mijenjati, no svejedno mnogi plaÄaju da bi dobili kopije. (Prisjetite se da
+se “slobodan softver” odnosi na slobodu, ne na cijenu.) Neki
+korisnici koji veÄ imaju kopiju naruÄuju trake kao naÄin davanja priloga za
+kojeg misle da ga zaslužujemo. Zaklada isto tako prima i znaÄajne donacije
+od proizvoÄaÄa raÄunala.</p>
+<p>
+ Zaklada za slobodan softver je neprofitna i njezin prihod troši se na
+zapoÅ¡ljavanje Å¡to je moguÄe viÅ¡e programera. Da je postavljena kao
poduzeÄe,
+koje distribuira javnosti isti slobodan softver za istu naknadu, sada bi
+svojem osnivaÄu osiguravala vrlo dobre prihode.</p>
+<p>
+ Zato Å¡to je Zaklada osnovana kao neprofitna, programeri Äesto rade za
+Zakladu u pola cijene koju bi mogli postiÄi drugdje. Äine to zbog toga Å¡to
+nemamo birokraciju, a i zbog toga Å¡to osjeÄaju zadovoljstvo znajuÄi da
+koriÅ¡tenje njihovog rada neÄe biti ometano. NajviÅ¡e od svega, Äine to zato
+Å¡to je programiranje zabavno. Dodatno, volonteri su za nas napisali mnogo
+korisnih programa. (Äak su i pisci tehniÄke dokumentacije poÄeli
+volontirati.)</p>
+<p>
+ Ovo potvrÄuje da je podruÄje programiranja najviÅ¡e oÄaravajuÄe od svih
+podruÄja, zajedno s glazbom i umjetnoÅ¡Äu. Ne moramo se plaÅ¡iti da nitko
neÄe
+htjeti programirati.</p>
+
+<h4 id="owe">Å to korisnici duguju razvijateljima?</h4>
+<p>
+ Postoji dobar razlog da korisnici softvera osjeÄaju moralnu obavezu
+doprinijeti njegovom razvoju. Razvijatelji slobodnog softvera doprinose radu
+korisnika, tako da je i poÅ¡teno i u dugoroÄnom interesu korisnika
+financirati ih kako bi nastavili.</p>
+<p>
+ MeÄutim, ovo se ne odnosi na razvijatelje vlasniÄkog softvera, buduÄi da
+opstruktivnost zaslužuje kaznu, a ne nagradu.</p>
+<p>
+ Stoga imamo paradoks: razvijatelj slobodnog softvera ima pravo na podršku
+korisnika, no bilo kakav pokušaj da se ova moralna dužnost pretvori u uvjet
+razara temelje za ovu dužnost. Razvijatelj može ili zaslužiti nagradu ili je
+zahtijevati, ali ne može oboje.</p>
+<p>
+ Vjerujem da etiÄki razvijatelj suoÄen s ovim paradoksom mora djelovati
tako
+da zasluži nagradu, no trebao bi i moliti korisnike za dobrovoljne
+donacije. Na kraju Äe korisnici nauÄiti podržavati razvijatelje bez prisile,
+jednako kako su nauÄili podržavati javne radio i televizijske postaje.</p>
+
+<h3 id="productivity">Å to je softverska uÄinkovitost? </h3>
+<p>
+ Kada bi softver bio slobodan, i dalje bismo imali programere, no možda bi
ih
+bilo manje. Bi li to bilo loše za društvo?</p>
+<p>
+ Ne nužno. Danas napredne države imaju manje poljoprivrednika nego
+1900. godine, no ne mislimo da je to loše za društvo, zato jer manje njih
+proizvodi viÅ¡e hrane za potroÅ¡aÄe nego Å¡to je prije Äinilo njih viÅ¡e. To
+nazivamo poboljÅ¡anom uÄinkovitoÅ¡Äu. Slobodan softver bi zahtijevao daleko
+manje programera da bi se zadovoljila potreba, zbog poveÄane softverske
+uÄinkovitosti na svim razinama:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li> Å ira upotreba svakog razvijenog programa.</li>
+<li> MoguÄnost prilagoÄavanja postojeÄih programa umjesto zapoÄinjanja
ispoÄetka.</li>
+<li> Bolje obrazovanje programera.</li>
+<li> Uklanjanje podvostruÄenog truda prilikom razvijanja.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Oni koji prigovaraju suradnji tvrdeÄi da bi rezultirala zapoÅ¡ljavanjem
manje
+programera zapravo prigovaraju poveÄanoj uÄinkovitosti. Usprkos tome, ti
+ljudi uglavnom prihvaÄaju Å¡iroko rasprostranjeno uvjerenje da je softverskoj
+industriji potrebna veÄa uÄinkovitost. Kako to?</p>
+<p>
+ “Softverska uÄinkovitost” može znaÄiti dvije razliÄite
stvari:
+ukupnu uÄinkovitost cjelokupnog softverskog razvoja, ili uÄinkovitost
+pojedinaÄnih projekata. Ukupna uÄinkovitost je ono Å¡to bi druÅ¡tvo željelo
da
+se poveÄa, a najizravniji naÄin da se to uÄini je da se uklone umjetne
+prepreke suradnji koje smanjuju tu uÄinkovitost. No, istraživaÄi koji
+prouÄavaju podruÄje “softverske uÄinkovitosti” usredotoÄuju se
+samo na ovaj drugi, ograniÄeni, smisao tog izraza, gdje poboljÅ¡anje
+zahtijeva težak tehniÄki napredak.</p>
+
+<h3 id="competition">Je li konkurencija neizbježna?</h3>
+<p>
+ Je li neizbježno da se ljudi pokušavaju natjecati, nadmašiti svoje
suparnike
+u društvu? Možda jest. No konkurencija sama po sebi nije štetna, štetna
+stvar je <em>borba</em>.</p>
+<p>
+ Postoji mnogo naÄina na koje se moguÄe natjecati. Natjecanje se može
+sastojati od pokušaja da uvijek postignemo više, da nadmašimo ono što su
+drugi uÄinili. Na primjer, nekada, natjecanje se odvijalo meÄu programerskim
+Äarobnjacima—natjecanje u tome tko može natjerati raÄunalo da napravi
+najnevjerojatniju stvar ili u tome tko može napraviti najkraÄi ili najbrži
+program za odreÄeni zadatak. Ovakva vrsta natjecanja donosi dobrobit
+svakome, <em>tako dugo dok</em> se održava fer sportski duh.</p>
+<p>
+ Konstruktivno natjecanje je dovoljno da bi motiviralo ljude za velike
+napore. Mnogi ljudi natjeÄu se kako bi bili prvi koji su posjetili sve
+zemlje svijeta, neki Äak troÅ¡e bogatstvo pokuÅ¡avajuÄi to uÄiniti. No, ne
+podmiÄuju kapetane brodova da nasuÄu svoje rivale na puste otoke. Zadovoljni
+su time da najbolji pobijedi.</p>
+<p>
+ Natjecanje postaje borba kada natjecatelji poÄnu pokuÅ¡avati ometati jedni
+druge umjesto da sami napreduju—kada izraz “Neka najbolji
+pobijedi” ustupi mjesto izrazu “HoÄu pobijediti, bio najbolji
+ili ne.” VlasniÄki softver Å¡tetan je, ne zato Å¡to je to oblik
+natjecanja, nego zato Å¡to je to oblik borbe meÄu graÄanima naÅ¡eg
društva.</p>
+<p>
+ Natjecanje u poslu nije nužno borba. Na primjer, kada se trgovine
mješovitom
+robom natjeÄu, sav njihov napor usmjeren je na poboljÅ¡avanje vlastitog
+djelovanja, ne na sabotažu suparnika. No, ovo nije iskazivanje posebne
+posveÄenosti poslovnoj etici, prije je to zato Å¡to je, osim fiziÄkog
+nasilja, malo prostora za borbu u toj vrsti posla.Ne dijele sva poslovna
+podruÄja ovu osobinu. Zadržavanje informacije koja bi mogla svima pomoÄi da
+napreduju oblik je borbe.</p>
+<p>
+ Poslovna ideologija ne priprema ljude da se odupru iskušenju borbe s
+konkurencijom. Neke vrste borbe izbaÄene su antitrustovskim zakonima,
+istinom u zakonima o oglaÅ¡avanju i sliÄno, ali umjesto da to uopÄe u
naÄelno
+odbacivanje borbe opÄenito, direktori su izmislili druge oblike borbe koji
+nisu posebno zabranjeni. Resursi društva rasipaju se u ekonomskom
+ekvivalentu frakcijskog graÄanskog rata.</p>
+
+<h3 id="communism">“ZaÅ¡to se ne preseliÅ¡ u Rusiju?”</h3>
+<p>
+ U Sjedinjenim Državama, svaki zagovornik bilo Äega osim krajnjeg oblika
+laissez-faire sebiÄnosti Äesto je Äuo ovakvu optužbu. Na primjer, uperena
je
+protiv onih koji podržavaju nacionalni sustav zdravstvene skrbi, kakav
+postoji u svim drugim industrijaliziranim narodima svijeta. Uperena je
+protiv javne podrÅ¡ke umjetnosti, takoÄer zajedniÄke svim naprednim
+narodima. Pomisao da graÄani imaju bilo kakvu dužnost prema javnom dobru u
+Americi je izjednaÄena s komunizmom. No, koliko su te ideje zaista
sliÄne?</p>
+<p>
+ Komunizam kakav je primjenjivao Sovjetski savez bio je sustav središnje
+kontrole gdje je sva djelatnost bila jednoobrazna, navodno za opÄe dobro, no
+zapravo uime Älanova KomunistiÄke partije. Isto tako je oprema za kopiranje
+bila strogo Äuvana kako bi se sprijeÄilo ilegalno kopiranje.</p>
+<p>
+ AmeriÄki sustav softverskih autorskih prava primjenjuje srediÅ¡nju kontrolu
+nad distribucijom programa i Äuva opremu za kopiranje automatskim sustavima
+zaÅ¡tite od kopiranja kako bi sprijeÄio ilegalno kopiranje.</p>
+<p>
+ Suprotno tome, ja radim na tome da izgradim sustav u kojem su ljudi slobodni
+odluÄiti o svojim djelovanjima, a naroÄito, slobodni pomoÄi svojim susjedima
+i slobodni izmijeniti i poboljšati alate koje koriste u svakodnevnom
+životu. Sustav temeljen na dobrovoljnoj suradnji i na decentralizaciji.</p>
+<p>
+ Dakle, ako Äemo suditi glediÅ¡ta po njihovim sliÄnostima ruskom komunizmu,
+vlasnici softvera su ti koji su komunisti.</p>
+
+<h3 id="premises">Pitanje pretpostavki</h3>
+<p>
+ U ovom dokumentu kreÄem od pretpostavke da korisnik softvera nije manje
+važan od autora, ili Äak autorovog poslodavca. Drugim rijeÄima, njihovi
+interesi i potrebe imaju jednaku težinu, kada odluÄujemo koji je pravac
+djelovanja najbolji.</p>
+<p>
+ Ova pretpostavka nije opÄeprihvaÄena. Mnogi se drže toga da je autorov
+poslodavac bitno važniji od bilo koga drugog. Kažu, na primjer, da je smisao
+vlasništva nad softverom davanje autorovom poslodavcu prednosti koju
+zaslužuje—bez obzira na to kako to može utjecati na javnost.</p>
+<p>
+ Nema koristi od pokušaja dokazivanja ili pobijanja ovih pretpostavki. Dokaz
+zahtijeva dijeljene pretpostavke. Stoga je veÄina onoga Å¡to imam za reÄi
+namijenjeno samo onima koji dijele moje pretpostavke, ili ih barem zanima
+koje su njihove posljedice. Za one koji vjeruju da su vlasnici važniji od
+svih drugih, ovaj dokument je jednostavno beznaÄajan.</p>
+<p>
+ No, zašto bi veliki broj Amerikanaca prihvatio pretpostavku kojom se
+odreÄeni ljudi po važnosti izdižu iznad svih drugih? DjelomiÄno zbog
+uvjerenja da je ova pretpostavka dio pravne tradicije ameriÄkog
+druÅ¡tva. Neki ljudi misle da dovoÄenje te pretpostavke u pitanje znaÄi
+izazov temeljima društva.</p>
+<p>
+ Važno je da ti ljudi shvate da ove pretpostavke nisu dio naše pravne
+tradicije. Nikada nisu niti bile.</p>
+<p>
+ Dakle, Ustav kaže da je smisao autorskih prava “promicati napredak
+znanosti i korisnih umjetnosti.” Vrhovni sud pojasnio je to,
+izjavljujuÄi u sluÄaju <em>Fox Filma protiv Doyala</em> da “jedini
+interes Sjedinjenih Država i prvenstveni cilj dodjeljivanja monopola
+[autorskih prava] leži u opÄim dobrobitima koje javnost dobiva od truda
+autora.”</p>
+<p>
+ Od nas se ne zahtijeva da se složimo s Ustavom ili Vrhovnim sudom. (U
jednom
+trenutku, oboje su dopuštali ropstvo.) Dakle, njihovi stavovi ne pobijaju
+pretpostavku nadmoÄnosti vlasnika. No, nadam se da Äe svijest o tome da je
+to pretpostavka radikalno desnog krila, a ne tradicionalno priznata
+pretpostavka, oslabiti njenu privlaÄnost.</p>
+
+<h3 id="conclusion">ZakljuÄak</h3>
+<p>
+ Želimo vjerovati da naÅ¡e druÅ¡tvo potiÄe pomaganje svojem susjedu, no
svaki
+put kada nagradimo neÄiju opstruktivnost, ili se divimo neÄijem bogatstvu
+koje su stekli na ovaj naÄin, Å¡aljemo suprotnu poruku.</p>
+<p>
+ Å krtarenje softverom jedan je oblik naÅ¡e opÄe voljnosti da zanemarimo
+blagostanje društva u zamjenu za osobnu dobit. Možemo to zanemarivanje
+pratiti od Ronalda Reagana do Dicka Cheneya, od Exxona do Enrona, od
+neuspjeÅ¡nih banaka do neuspjeÅ¡nih Å¡kola. Možemo ga mjeriti veliÄinom
+beskuÄniÄke populacije i zatvorske populacije. ProtudruÅ¡tveni duh hrani se
+sam sobom, jer Å¡to viÅ¡e vidimo da nam drugi ljudi ne žele pomoÄi, viÅ¡e se
+uzaludnim Äini da mi pomognemo njima. Time se druÅ¡tvo raspada u džunglu.</p>
+<p>
+ Ne želimo li živjeti u džungli, moramo promijeniti naše stavove. Moramo
+poÄeti slati poruku da je dobar graÄanin onaj koji suraÄuje kada je to
+svrsishodno, a ne onaj koji je uspjeÅ¡an u uzimanju od drugih. Nadam se da Äe
+pokret za slobodan softver tome doprinijeti: barem u jednom podruÄju,
+zamijenit Äemo džunglu efikasnijim sustavom koji potiÄe i funkcionira na
+dobrovoljnoj suradnji.</p>
+
+
+<h3 id="footnotes">Napomene</h3>
+
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">RijeÄ “slobodan” u izrazu “slobodan
softver” odnosi
+se na slobodu, a ne na cijenu; cijena plaÄena za primjerak slobodnog
+programa može biti nula, ili mala, ili (rijetko) priliÄno velika.</li>
+
+<li id="f2">Problemi zagaÄenja i prometne zaguÅ¡enosti ne mijenjaju ovaj
+zakljuÄak. Želimo li vožnju uÄiniti skupljom kako bismo destimulirali
vožnju
+opÄenito, nepovoljno je to uÄiniti upotrebom naplatnih kuÄica, koje
+doprinose i zagaÄenju i zaguÅ¡enju. Porez na gorivo mnogo je bolji. Jednako
+tako, želja da poboljÅ¡amo sigurnost ograniÄavajuÄi najveÄu dozvoljenu
brzinu
+nebitna je; cesta sa slobodnim pristupom poveÄava prosjeÄnu brzinu
+izbjegavanjem zaustavljanja i zadržavanja, za bilo koje ograniÄenje
brzine.</li>
+
+<li id="f3">Netko može smatrati odreÄeni raÄunalni program neÄim Å¡tetnim
Å¡to ne bi
+smjelo uopÄe biti dostupno, kao Å¡to je baza podataka osobnih informacija
+Lotus Marketplace, koja je povuÄena iz prodaje zbog neodobravanja
+javnosti. VeÄina onoga Å¡to govorim ne odnosi se na ovaj sluÄaj, ali nema
+previÅ¡e smisla prepirati se zbog postojanja vlasnika na temelju toga da Äe
+vlasnici uzrokovati manju dostupnost programa. Vlasnik ga neÄe uÄiniti
+<em>potpuno</em> nedostupnim, kao Å¡to bismo željeli u sluÄaju programa Äije
+se korištenje smatra štetnim.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>Ovaj esej objavljen je u djelu <a
+href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>Slobodan
+softver, slobodno društvo: Izabrani eseji Richarda M.
Stallmana</cite></a></h4>
+
+<div style="font-size: small;">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.hr.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Molimo vas, opÄenite upite o FSF & GNU Å¡aljite na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Postoje i <a
+href="/contact/">drugi naÄini kontaktiranja</a> FSF-a. Prekinute poveznice i
+ostale ispravke ili prijedloge možete poslati na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Radimo naporno i dajemo sve od sebe kako bismo pružili toÄne, visoko
+kvalitetne prijevode. MeÄutim, nismo osloboÄeni od nesavrÅ¡enosti. Molimo
+vas, Å¡aljite svoje komentare i opÄenite prijedloge u tom smislu na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
+Za informacije o koordiniranju i dostavljanju prijevoda naših mrežnih
+stranica, pogledajte <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">PROÄITAJME za
+prijevode</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>Ovo djelo dano je na korištenje pod <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.hr";>licencom
+Creative Commons Imenovanje-Bez prerada 3.0 SAD</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.hr.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+<b>Prijevod</b>: Nevenko BariÄeviÄ, 2013.</div>
+
+
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
+Vrijeme zadnje izmjene:
+
+$Date: 2013/08/24 18:58:42 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: po/shouldbefree.hr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/shouldbefree.hr-en.html
diff -N po/shouldbefree.hr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/shouldbefree.hr-en.html 24 Aug 2013 18:58:42 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,883 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>Why Software Should Be Free
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Software Should Be Free</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<h3 id="introduction">Introduction</h3>
+<p>
+The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
+decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one
+individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
+copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
+whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party,
+called the “owner”?</p>
+<p>
+ Software developers typically consider these questions on the
+assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
+profits. The political power of business has led to the government
+adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
+developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation
+associated with its development.</p>
+<p>
+ 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>
+<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>
+
+<h3 id="owner-justification">How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
+<p>
+ Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
+offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
+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>
+<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
+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>
+<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
+formulation of the argument.</p>
+<p>
+ This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a
+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 versus 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
+software's use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced with
+the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage is
+not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
+social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
+have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
+versus no software is begging the question.</p>
+
+<h3 id="against-having-owners">The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
+<p>
+ The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked
+with having owners to restrict the use of it?”</p>
+<p>
+ In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
+each of those two activities <em>independently</em>: the effect of developing
+the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect
+of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If
+one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be
+better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.</p>
+<p>
+ To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program
+already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical
+software developer will reject the option of doing so.</p>
+<p>
+ To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare
+the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with
+that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing
+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>
+<p>
+ To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
+construction.</p>
+<p>
+ It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with
+tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners.
+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>
+<p>
+ Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find
+that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
+construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to
+use.<a href="#f2">(2)</a> In a poor country, tolls may make the roads
+unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus
+offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for
+society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another
+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>
+<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>
+<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>
+
+<h4 id="harm-done">The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4>
+<p>
+ Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
+necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
+choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use.
+Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a
+desirable thing.<a href="#f3">(3)</a></p>
+<p>
+ Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program
+cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can
+only be negative. But how much? And what kind?</p>
+<p>
+ Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Fewer people use the program.</li>
+
+<li>None of the users can adapt or fix the program.</li>
+
+<li>Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on
it.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial
+harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their
+subsequent feelings, attitudes, and predispositions. These changes in
+people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their
+relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material
+consequences.</p>
+<p>
+ The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the
+program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they
+waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program
+harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program.
+Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net
+direct material benefit.</p>
+<p>
+ However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
+is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.</p>
+
+<h4 id="obstructing-use">Obstructing Use of Programs</h4>
+<p>
+ The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy
+of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
+doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero
+price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program.
+If a widely useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it.</p>
+<p>
+ It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to
+society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of
+the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay,
+or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a
+zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone
+chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without
+benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be
+negative.</p>
+<p>
+ But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to <em>develop</em>
+the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in
+delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.</p>
+<p>
+ This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and
+cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material
+objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy;
+anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little
+effort. This isn't true for material objects because matter is
+conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same
+way that the first copy was built.</p>
+<p>
+ With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense,
+because fewer objects bought means less raw material and work needed
+to make them. It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a
+development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long
+as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the
+development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does
+not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.</p>
+<p>
+ However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free
+is a qualitative change. A centrally imposed fee for software
+distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.</p>
+<p>
+ What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even
+as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves
+enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping
+large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This
+cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
+of the waste caused by having owners.</p>
+
+<h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion">Damaging Social Cohesion</h4>
+<p>
+ Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
+certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
+that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it.
+A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while
+restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should
+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>
+<p>
+ Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
+they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
+But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must
+break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider
+the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor
+(which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of
+psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses
+and laws have no moral force.</p>
+<p>
+ Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
+will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of
+cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
+work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, “Will I be
+permitted to use it?”, his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
+To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
+time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
+it.</p>
+<p>
+ Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States
+is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together
+for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
+expense of the latter.</p>
+
+<h4 id="custom-adaptation">Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs</h4>
+<p>
+ The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
+The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
+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>
+<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>
+
+<pre>
+ float
+ distance (p0, p1)
+ struct point p0, p1;
+ {
+ float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
+ float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
+ return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
+ }
+</pre>
+<p>
+ Precisely what that source code means is not the point; the point
+ is that it looks like algebra, and a person who knows this
+ programming language will find it meaningful and clear. By
+ contrast, here is same program in executable form, on the computer
+ I normally used when I wrote this:
+</p>
+
+<pre>
+ 1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862
+ 1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208
+ -234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424
+ 1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495
+ 572518958 -803143692 1314803317
+</pre>
+
+<p>
+ Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a
+program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source
+code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret
+by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive
+only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will
+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 <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
+laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a
+separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite
+features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was
+sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually
+printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to
+find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And
+no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often
+went for an hour without being fixed.</p>
+<p>
+ The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such
+problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program.
+Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we
+were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.</p>
+<p>
+ Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank
+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>
+<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>
+
+<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>
+<p>
+ The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
+necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also
+prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn
+useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.</p>
+<p>
+ Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in
+computer science who have never seen the source code of a large
+program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't
+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>
+<p>
+ The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
+cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
+even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese
+oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific
+carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a
+note asking them to take good care of it.</p>
+<p>
+ Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared.
+Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers
+to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough
+to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is
+certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
+programs reported on is usually secret.</p>
+
+<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 <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
+objective.</p>
+
+<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
+widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have
+owners for programs.</p>
+<p>
+ Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free
+software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging
+the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.</p>
+<p>
+ Vaclav Havel has advised us to “Work for something because it is
+good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.” A business
+making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
+terms, but it is not what is good for society.</p>
+
+<h3 id="why-develop">Why People Will Develop Software</h3>
+<p>
+ If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging
+people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
+but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the
+overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if
+we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage
+development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money
+for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
+question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.</p>
+
+<h4 id="fun">Programming is Fun</h4>
+<p>
+ There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
+road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
+art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
+for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples
+include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
+political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly
+than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is
+funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the
+field, if they can afford to.</p>
+<p>
+ Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
+possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand
+the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing
+what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by,
+everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would
+be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise
+social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing
+special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.</p>
+<p>
+ This change happened in the field of computer programming in the
+1980s. In the 1970s, 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 back then.</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
+of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we
+take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the
+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>
+
+<h4 id="funding">Funding Free Software</h4>
+<p>
+ Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
+Many other institutions already exist that can do this.</p>
+<p>
+ Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software
+development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In
+1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider
+restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join consortiums
+shows their realization that owning the software is not what is really
+important for them.</p>
+<p>
+ Universities conduct many programming projects. Today they often
+sell the results, but in the 1970s they did not. Is there any doubt
+that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed
+to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same
+government contracts and grants that now support proprietary software
+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>
+<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/">GNU C compiler</a> to new hardware, and
+to make user-interface extensions to
+<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>
+<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>
+<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
+business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same
+fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.</p>
+<p>
+ Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the
+Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this
+because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction
+in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of
+all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers
+have written many useful programs for us. (Even technical writers
+have begun to volunteer.)</p>
+<p>
+ This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all
+fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one
+will want to program.</p>
+
+<h4 id="owe">What Do Users Owe to Developers?</h4>
+<p>
+ There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
+obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software
+are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in
+the long-term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.</p>
+<p>
+ However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers,
+since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.</p>
+<p>
+ We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled
+to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral
+obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A
+developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.</p>
+<p>
+ I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act
+so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for
+voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support
+developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
+radio and television stations.</p>
+
+<h3 id="productivity">What Is Software Productivity? </h3>
+<p>
+ If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
+fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?</p>
+<p>
+ Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than
+in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
+deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call
+this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer
+programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
+productivity at all levels:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li> Wider use of each program that is developed.</li>
+<li> The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
+ of starting from scratch.</li>
+<li> Better education of programmers.</li>
+<li> The elimination of duplicate development effort.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the
+employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased
+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>
+
+<h3 id="competition">Is Competition Inevitable?</h3>
+<p>
+ Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
+rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
+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>
+<p>
+ Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
+great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have
+visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to
+do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on
+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>
+<p>
+ Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when
+two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
+operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a
+special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for
+combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all
+areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information
+that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.</p>
+<p>
+ Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to
+combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with
+antitrust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than
+generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general,
+executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically
+prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
+equivalent of factional civil war.</p>
+
+<h3 id="communism">“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3>
+<p>
+ In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
+form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
+example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care
+system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the
+free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for
+the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens
+have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with
+Communism. But how similar are these ideas?</p>
+<p>
+ Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of
+central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the
+common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist
+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
+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
+neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in
+their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on
+decentralization.</p>
+<p>
+ Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
+Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.</p>
+
+<h3 id="premises">The Question of Premises</h3>
+<p>
+ I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
+less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other
+words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide
+which course of action is best.</p>
+<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>
+<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
+only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested
+in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners
+are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant.</p>
+<p>
+ But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise that
+elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly
+because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions
+of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means
+challenging the basis of society.</p>
+<p>
+ It is important for these people to know that this premise is not
+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 <em>Fox Film
+v. Doyal</em>; 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
+do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the
+awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
+traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.</p>
+
+<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3>
+<p>
+ We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
+but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
+the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite
+message.</p>
+<p>
+ Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard
+the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard
+from Ronald Reagan to Dick Cheney, from Exxon to Enron, from
+failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of
+the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial
+spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will
+not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays
+into a jungle.</p>
+<p>
+ If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes.
+We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who
+cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from
+others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to
+this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more
+efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.</p>
+
+
+<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
+
+<ol>
+<li 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.</li>
+
+<li 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.</li>
+
+<li id="f3">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.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published
+in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a></h4>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/08/24 18:58:42 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy po/shouldbefree.hr.po po/shouldb...,
GNUN <=