[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-doc.sr.html shouldbefree.sr...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-doc.sr.html shouldbefree.sr... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 4 Sep 2017 09:07:09 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 17/09/04 09:07:09
Modified files:
philosophy : free-doc.sr.html shouldbefree.sr.html
philosophy/po : free-doc.sr.po shouldbefree.sr.po
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-doc.sr-en.html shouldbefree.sr-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.sr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.sr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.sr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.sr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.sr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.sr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-doc.sr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.sr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.22
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -b -r1.22 -r1.23
--- free-doc.sr.html 11 Mar 2017 10:17:43 -0000 1.22
+++ free-doc.sr.html 4 Sep 2017 13:07:09 -0000 1.23
@@ -1,21 +1,20 @@
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-doc.sr.po">
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.sr.po</a>'
- --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.html"
- --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value=""
- --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2010-06-26" -->
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.sr.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Слободан ÑоÑÑÐ²ÐµÑ Ð¸ Ñлободни
пÑиÑÑÑниÑи - ÐÑоÑÐµÐºÐ°Ñ ÐÐУ - ÐадÑжбина за
-Ñлободан ÑоÑÑвеÑ</title>
+<title>ÐаÑÑо Ñе Ñлободном ÑоÑÑвеÑÑ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑебна
Ñлободна докÑменÑаÑиÑа - ÐÑоÑÐµÐºÐ°Ñ ÐÐУ -
+ÐадÑжбина за Ñлободан ÑоÑÑвеÑ</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.sr.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.sr.html" -->
-<h2>Слободан ÑоÑÑÐ²ÐµÑ Ð¸ Ñлободни
пÑиÑÑÑниÑи</h2>
+<h2>ÐаÑÑо Ñе Ñлободном ÑоÑÑвеÑÑ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑебна
Ñлободна докÑменÑаÑиÑа</h2>
+
+<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html";>ÐÑидÑÑжиÑе Ñе
наÑÐ¾Ñ Ð»Ð¸ÑÑи
+е-поÑÑе о опаÑноÑÑи елекÑÑонÑкиÑ
кÑига</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">ÐÐУ Ñлободна лиÑенÑа
докÑменÑаÑиÑе</a></li>
@@ -200,7 +199,8 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p><b>ÐÑÑоÑÑка пÑава:</b><br />1996-2007, 2009 Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
+2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016 ÐадÑжбина за Ñлободан
ÑоÑÑвеÑ</p>
<p>Ðва ÑÑÑана Ñе лиÑенÑиÑана под ÑÑловима
лиÑенÑе <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.sr";>Creative
@@ -211,12 +211,13 @@
<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
<b>ÐÑевод:</b>
-ÐÐ°Ð·Ð°Ñ ÐоваÑевиÑ, <em>lazar</em> на ÑеÑвеÑÑ
<em>invеrudio.com</em>, 2008.</div>
+ÐÐ°Ð·Ð°Ñ ÐоваÑевиÑ, <em>lazar</em> на ÑеÑвеÑÑ
<em>invеrudio.com</em>, 2008.
+ÐоÑиÑав ÐÐ¸Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ñ <address@hidden>, 2017.</div>
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÐжÑÑиÑано:
-$Date: 2017/03/11 10:17:43 $
+$Date: 2017/09/04 13:07:09 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: shouldbefree.sr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.sr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- shouldbefree.sr.html 11 Mar 2017 10:17:43 -0000 1.25
+++ shouldbefree.sr.html 4 Sep 2017 13:07:09 -0000 1.26
@@ -1,9 +1,4 @@
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.sr.po">
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.sr.po</a>'
- --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html"
- --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value=""
- --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2010-06-29" -->
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.sr.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -14,7 +9,6 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.sr.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.sr.html" -->
<h2>ÐаÑÑо ÑоÑÑÐ²ÐµÑ ÑÑеба да бÑде Ñлободан</h2>
<p>
@@ -308,7 +302,10 @@
}
</pre>
<p>
- Ðво иÑÑог пÑогÑама Ñ Ð¸Ð·Ð²ÑÑном обликÑ, на
ÑаÑÑнаÑÑ ÐºÐ¾Ñи Ñа обиÑно коÑиÑÑим:
+ ÐапÑаво, знаÑеÑе Ñог извоÑног кода ниÑе
пÑоблем, него Ñе пÑоблем ÑÑо изгледа
+као алгебÑа, оÑоби коÑа влада Ñим
пÑогÑамÑким Ñезиком би било ÑаÑно о ÑемÑ
+Ñе ÑÑ Ñади. ÐаÑÑпÑÐ¾Ñ Ñоме, ево га иÑÑи ÑаÑ
пÑогÑам Ñ Ð¸Ð·Ð²ÑÑÐ½Ð¾Ñ ÑоÑми Ñ ÐºÐ¾ÑоÑ
+Ñе налази на мом ÑаÑÑнаÑÑ ÐºÐ¾Ñи Ñам
коÑиÑÑио док Ñам ово пиÑао:
</p>
<pre>
@@ -480,13 +477,13 @@
да Ñе поÑÑаÑаÑÑ Ð´Ð° Ñе Ñе нагÑаде омогÑÑе,
додеÑÑÑÑÑи поÑебне пÑивилегиÑе,
моÑи и монополе коÑи ÑÑ Ð·Ð° Ñо неопÑ
одни.</p>
<p>
- Ðваква пÑомена Ñе деÑила Ñ Ð¾Ð±Ð»Ð°ÑÑи
ÑаÑÑнаÑÑког пÑогÑамиÑаÑа Ñ Ð¿ÑоÑеклоÑ
-деÑениÑи. ÐÑе пеÑнаеÑÑ Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ð°, пиÑани ÑÑ
ÑланÑи о âзавиÑноÑÑи од ÑаÑÑнаÑаâ:
-коÑиÑниÑи ÑÑ Ñе âпÑикÑÑÑивали на мÑежÑâ и
бавили Ñе âÑкÑпим ÑпоÑÑомâ. Ðило
-Ñе ÑаÑпÑоÑÑÑаÑено ÑÑ
ваÑаÑе да ÑÑ Ð½ÐµÐºÐ¸
ÑеÑÑо Ñолико волели пÑогÑамиÑаÑе да ÑÑ
-ÑаÑÑÑÑали бÑакове. ÐÐ°Ð½Ð°Ñ Ñе
ÑаÑпÑоÑÑÑаÑено ÑÑ
ваÑаÑе да нико не би
-пÑогÑамиÑао оÑим за виÑÐ¾ÐºÑ Ð½Ð¾Ð²ÑанÑ
надокнадÑ. ÐабоÑавÑено Ñе оно ÑÑо Ñе било
-познаÑо пÑе пеÑнаеÑÑ Ð³Ð¾Ð´Ð¸Ð½Ð°.</p>
+ Ðваква пÑомена Ñе деÑила Ñ Ð¾Ð±Ð»Ð°ÑÑи
ÑаÑÑнаÑÑког пÑогÑамиÑаÑа Ñ Ð¾ÑамдеÑеÑим
+годинама пÑоÑлог века. СедамдеÑеÑиÑ
било
Ñе новинÑкиÑ
Ñланака и
+“завиÑноÑÑи од ÑаÑÑнаÑа”:, како ÑÑ
ÑÑди били “ÑÑално на
+мÑежи”: и да ÑÑ Ð¸Ñ
Ñе навике коÑÑале
ÑÑоÑине долаÑа меÑеÑно. СмаÑÑало
+Ñе да ÑÑ ÑÑди Ñолико волели пÑогÑамиÑаÑе
да би због Ñега ÑаÑÑÑÑали
+бÑакове. ÐÐ°Ð½Ð°Ñ Ñе ÑмаÑÑа да Ñе Ñиме нико не
би бавио без велике плаÑе. ÐÑди
+ÑÑ Ð·Ð°Ð±Ð¾Ñавили оно ÑÑо ÑÑ Ñад ÑмаÑÑали.</p>
<p>
Ðако Ñе ÑаÑно да Ñе Ñе Ñ Ð¾Ð´ÑеÑено вÑеме
веÑина ÑÑди бавиÑи одÑеÑеном облаÑÑÑ
Ñамо за виÑÐ¾ÐºÑ Ð¿Ð»Ð°ÑÑ, Ñо не моÑа да оÑÑане
ÑаÑно. ТоÑак пÑомена може да Ñе
@@ -748,6 +745,7 @@
замениÑемо ÑÑÐ½Ð³Ð»Ñ ÐµÑикаÑниÑим ÑиÑÑемом
коÑи подÑÑиÑе добÑовоÑÐ½Ñ ÑаÑадÑÑ Ð¸ од
Ñе завиÑи.</p>
+
<h3 id="footnotes">ФÑÑноÑе</h3>
<ol>
@@ -821,8 +819,8 @@
ÐÐÐÐÐРпÑeводим ÐÐУ-ов веб</a>.)</p>
</div>
-<p><b>ÐÑÑоÑÑка пÑава:</b><br />Copyright © 1998, 2000, 2001,
2006, 2007
-Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p><b>ÐÑÑоÑÑка пÑава:</b><br />Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998,
2000, 2001,
+2006, 2007, 2010, 2017 ÐадÑжбина за Ñловодни
ÑоÑÑвеÑ</p>
<p>Ðва ÑÑÑана Ñе лиÑенÑиÑана под ÑÑловима
лиÑенÑе <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.sr";>Creative
@@ -840,7 +838,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÐжÑÑиÑано:
-$Date: 2017/03/11 10:17:43 $
+$Date: 2017/09/04 13:07:09 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-doc.sr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.sr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -b -r1.27 -r1.28
Index: po/shouldbefree.sr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.sr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -b -r1.27 -r1.28
--- po/shouldbefree.sr.po 4 Sep 2017 12:00:58 -0000 1.27
+++ po/shouldbefree.sr.po 4 Sep 2017 13:07:09 -0000 1.28
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2010-06-29 03:05+0000\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 2.0.3\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
Index: po/free-doc.sr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-doc.sr-en.html
diff -N po/free-doc.sr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-doc.sr-en.html 4 Sep 2017 13:07:09 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation</h2>
+
+<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html";>Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<ul>
+<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation License</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include
+in these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come
+with full manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.</p>
+
+<p>
+Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
+a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
+Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals—but those were not free.</p>
+
+<p>
+Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
+terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
+available—which exclude them from the free software
+community.</p>
+
+<p>
+That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
+our community's great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary
+manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their
+manuals since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell
+me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help
+the GNU Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to
+explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would
+restrict it so that we cannot use it.</p>
+
+<p>
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p>
+
+<p>
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
+Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
+fine. (The Free Software Foundation
+<a href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/";>sells printed
+copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>, too.) But
+GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
+available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
+modify; the Perl manuals do not. These restrictions are the problems.</p>
+
+<p>
+The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
+software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
+permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
+on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to
+have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For
+example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to
+modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our
+views.</p>
+
+<p>
+But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right
+to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual too—so they can provide
+accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
+which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the job, or
+more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if
+they change the program, does not fill our community's needs.</p>
+
+<p>
+While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
+kinds of limits on the method of modification pose no problem. For
+example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
+notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is
+also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+topics. (Some GNU manuals have them.)</p>
+
+<p>
+These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, they don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the
+manual to fit the modified program. In other words, they don't block
+the free software community from making full use of the manual.</p>
+
+<p>
+However, it must be possible to modify all the <em>technical</em>
+content of the manual, and then distribute the result through all the usual
+media, through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+block the community, the manual is not free, and so we need another
+manual.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another
+manual when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many
+users think that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they
+don't see the need to write a free manual. They do not see that the
+free operating system has a gap that needs filling.</p>
+
+<p>
+Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some
+have not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something
+to change that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same
+reason so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they
+judge in purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion.
+These people are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions
+spring from values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for
+those of us who do value freedom.</p>
+
+<p>
+Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals
+to proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary
+manuals are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help
+GNU by writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that
+he must above all make it free.</p>
+
+<p>
+We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones. One way you can help this is to
+check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
+prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.</p>
+<p>
+[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
+that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/09/04 13:07:09 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: po/shouldbefree.sr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/shouldbefree.sr-en.html
diff -N po/shouldbefree.sr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/shouldbefree.sr-en.html 4 Sep 2017 13:07:09 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,886 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<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 />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">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>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017 Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/09/04 13:07:09 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-doc.sr.html shouldbefree.sr...,
GNUN <=