www/doc fsfs-ii-2.txt

[Ted Teah]

CVSROOT:        /sources/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Ted Teah <tedt> 17/10/05 14:32:37

Added files:
        doc            : fsfs-ii-2.txt 

Log message:
        text version of pdf

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/doc/fsfs-ii-2.txt?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: fsfs-ii-2.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: fsfs-ii-2.txt
diff -N fsfs-ii-2.txt
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ fsfs-ii-2.txt       5 Oct 2017 18:32:37 -0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,10904 @@
+Richard Stallman is the prophet of the free software movement. He understood
+the dangers of software patents years ago. Now that this has become a crucial
+issue in the world, buy this book and read what he said.
+—Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web
+
+Richard Stallman is the philosopher king of software. He single-handedly 
ignited
+what has become a world-wide movement to create software that is Free, with a
+capital F. He has toiled for years at a project that many once considered a 
fool’s
+errand, and now that is widely seen as “inevitable.”
+—Simon L. Garfinkel, computer science author and columnist
+
+By his hugely successful efforts to establish the idea of “Free Software,” 
Stallman
+has made a massive contribution to the human condition. His contribution 
combines elements that have technical, social, political, and economic 
consequences.
+—Gerald Jay Sussman, Matsushita Professor of Electrical Engineering, MIT
+
+RMS is the leading philosopher of software. You may dislike some of his 
attitudes, but you cannot avoid his ideas. This slim volume will make those 
ideas
+readily accessible to those who are confused by the buzzwords of rampant 
commercialism. This book needs to be widely circulated and widely read.
+—Peter Salus, computer science writer, book reviewer, and UNIX historian
+
+Richard is the leading force of the free software movement. This book is very
+important to spread the key concepts of free software world-wide, so everyone
+can understand it. Free software gives people freedom to use their creativity.
+—Masayuki Ida, professor, Graduate School of International Management,
+Aoyama Gakuin University
+
+Free Software, Free Society
+Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman
+Second Edition
+
+Richard M. Stallman
+
+This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of
+Richard M. Stallman.
+Free Software Foundation
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright c 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation
+and the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on
+all copies.
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+
+iii
+
+Contents
+Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
+Preface to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . ix
+Part I: The GNU Project and Free Software
+1 The Free Software Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . 3
+2 The GNU Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . 7
+3 The Initial Announcement of the GNU Operating System . . 25
+4 The GNU Manifesto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . 27
+5 Why Software Should Not Have Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
+6 Why Software Should Be Free. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 43
+7 Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software . . . . . . . . 57
+8 Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University . . . . . . . 59
+9 Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
+10 Selling Free Software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . 65
+11 The Free Software Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . 69
+
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+
+Part II: What’s in a Name?
+What’s in a Name? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . .
+Categories of Free and Nonfree Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software . . . . . . .
+Did You Say “Intellectual Property”?
+It’s a Seductive Mirage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . .
+Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+Because They Are Loaded or Confusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Part III: Copyright, Copyleft
+The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Science Must Push Copyright Aside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Freedom—or Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . .
+What Is Copyleft? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . .
+Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . .
+
+73
+77
+83
+89
+93
+
+105
+111
+121
+123
+127
+129
+
+iv
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+23
+24
+25
+26
+
+Part IV: Software Patents: Danger to Programmers
+Anatomy of a Trivial Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . .
+Software Patents and Literary Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+The Danger of Software Patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
.
+Microsoft’s New Monopoly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . .
+
+135
+139
+143
+159
+
+27
+28
+29
+30
+31
+
+Part V: The Licenses
+Introduction to the Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . .
+The GNU General Public License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Why Upgrade to GPLv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . .
+The GNU Lesser General Public License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+GNU Free Documentation License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+
+165
+171
+185
+189
+193
+
+32
+33
+34
+35
+36
+37
+38
+39
+
+Part VI: Traps and Challenges
+Can You Trust Your Computer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Who Does That Server Really Serve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Free but Shackled: The Java Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+The JavaScript Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . .
+The X Window System Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. .
+The Problem Is Software Controlled by Its Developer . . . . .
+We Can Put an End to Word Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Thank You, Larry McVoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . .
+
+205
+209
+215
+219
+223
+227
+231
+235
+
+40
+41
+42
+43
+
+Part VII: An Assessment and a Look Ahead
+Computing “Progress”: Good and Bad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+Avoiding Ruinous Compromises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
.
+Overcoming Social Inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . .
+Freedom or Power? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . .
+
+239
+241
+245
+247
+
+Appendix A: A Note on Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . 249
+Appendix B: Translations of the Term “Free Software” . . . . . . 253
+Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
+
+Foreword
+
+v
+
+Foreword
+Every generation has its philosopher—a writer or an artist who captures the
+imagination of a time. Sometimes these philosophers are recognized as such;
+often it takes generations before the connection is made real. But recognized
+or not, a time gets marked by the people who speak its ideals, whether in the
+whisper of a poem, or the blast of a political movement.
+Our generation has a philosopher. He is not an artist, or a professional 
writer.
+He is a programmer. Richard Stallman began his work in the labs of MIT, as
+a programmer and architect building operating system software. He has built
+his career on a stage of public life, as a programmer and an architect founding
+a movement for freedom in a world increasingly defined by “code.”
+“Code” is the technology that makes computers run. Whether inscribed in
+software or burned in hardware, it is the collection of instructions, first 
written in
+words, that directs the functionality of machines. These 
machines—computers—
+increasingly define and control our life. They determine how phones connect,
+and what runs on TV. They decide whether video can be streamed across a
+broadband link to a computer. They control what a computer reports back to
+its manufacturer. These machines run us. Code runs these machines.
+What control should we have over this code? What understanding? What
+freedom should there be to match the control it enables? What power?
+These questions have been the challenge of Stallman’s life. Through his works
+and his words, he has pushed us to see the importance of keeping code 
“free.”
+Not free in the sense that code writers don’t get paid, but free in the 
sense that
+the control coders build be transparent to all, and that anyone have the right
+to take that control, and modify it as he or she sees fit. This is “free 
software”;
+“free software” is one answer to a world built in code.
+“Free.” Stallman laments the ambiguity in his own term. There’s nothing 
to
+lament. Puzzles force people to think, and this term “free” does this 
puzzling
+work quite well. To modern American ears, “free software” sounds utopian,
+impossible. Nothing, not even lunch, is free. How could the most important
+words running the most critical machines running the world be “free.” How
+could a sane society aspire to such an ideal?
+Yet the odd clink of the word “free” is a function of us, not of the term. 
“Free”
+has different senses, only one of which refers to “price.” A much more 
fundamental sense of “free” is the “free,” Stallman says, in the term 
“free speech,” or
+perhaps better in the term “free labor.” Not free as in costless, but free 
as in
+limited in its control by others. Free software is control that is 
transparent, and
+open to change, just as free laws, or the laws of a “free society,” are 
free when
+Copyright c 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This foreword was originally published, in 2002, as the introduction to the 
first
+edition. This version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays 
of
+Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+vi
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+they make their control knowable, and open to change. The aim of Stallman’s
+“free software movement” is to make as much code as it can transparent, and
+subject to change, by rendering it “free.”
+The mechanism of this rendering is an extraordinarily clever device called
+“copyleft” implemented through a license called GPL. Using the power of 
copyright law, “free software” not only assures that it remains open, and 
subject to
+change, but that other software that takes and uses “free software” (and 
that
+technically counts as a “derivative”) must also itself be free. If you use 
and adapt
+a free software program, and then release that adapted version to the public,
+the released version must be as free as the version it was adapted from. It 
must,
+or the law of copyright will be violated.
+“Free software,” like free societies, has its enemies. Microsoft has waged 
a
+war against the GPL, warning whoever will listen that the GPL is a 
“dangerous”
+license. The dangers it names, however, are largely illusory. Others object to
+the “coercion” in GPL’s insistence that modified versions are also free. 
But a
+condition is not coercion. If it is not coercion for Microsoft to refuse to 
permit
+users to distribute modified versions of its product Office without paying it
+(presumably) millions, then it is not coercion when the GPL insists that 
modified
+versions of free software be free too.
+And then there are those who call Stallman’s message too extreme. But
+extreme it is not. Indeed, in an obvious sense, Stallman’s work is a simple
+translation of the freedoms that our tradition crafted in the world before 
code.
+“Free software” would assure that the world governed by code is as 
“free” as our
+tradition that built the world before code.
+For example: A “free society” is regulated by law. But there are limits 
that
+any free society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept 
its
+laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its regulations
+from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law controls. But it does
+so justly only when visibly. And law is visible only when its terms are 
knowable
+and controllable by those it regulates, or by the agents of those it regulates
+(lawyers, legislatures).
+This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think about
+the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their clients to
+advance their clients’ interests. Sometimes that interest is advanced 
through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers write briefs. 
These briefs in turn
+affect opinions written by judges. These opinions decide who wins a particular
+case, or whether a certain law can stand consistently with a constitution.
+All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
+Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments are transparent
+(which is different from saying they are good) and the reasoning can be taken
+without the permission of the original lawyers. The opinions they produce can
+be quoted in later briefs. They can be copied and integrated into another brief
+or opinion. The “source code” for American law is by design, and by 
principle,
+open and free for anyone to take. And take lawyers do—for it is a measure of
+
+Foreword
+
+vii
+
+a great brief that it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what 
happened
+before. The source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
+This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn’t starve
+lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even though
+the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. The lawyer is a
+craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is not charity. 
Lawyers
+get paid; the public doesn’t demand such work without price. Instead this
+economy flourishes, with later work added to the earlier.
+We could imagine a legal practice that was different—briefs and arguments
+that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not the reasoning.
+Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one else. Regulation that
+operated without explaining its rule.
+We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it “free.”
+Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better or more 
efficiently
+allocated, such a society could not be known as free. The ideals of freedom, 
of life
+within a free society, demand more than efficient application. Instead, 
openness
+and transparency are the constraints within which a legal system gets built, 
not
+options to be added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software 
code
+should be no less.
+Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more productive. But the
+law is an obvious instance of how creativity and incentives do not depend upon
+perfect control over the products created. Like jazz, or novels, or 
architecture,
+the law gets built upon the work that went before. This adding and changing
+is what creativity always is. And a free society is one that assures that its 
most
+important resources remain free in just this sense.
+This book collects the writing of Richard Stallman in a manner that will make
+its subtlety and power clear. The essays span a wide range, from copyright to
+the history of the free software movement. They include many arguments not
+well known, and among these, an especially insightful account of the changed
+circumstances that render copyright in the digital world suspect. They will 
serve
+as a resource for those who seek to understand the thought of this most 
powerful
+man—powerful in his ideas, his passion, and his integrity, even if powerless 
in
+every other way. They will inspire others who would take these ideas, and build
+upon them.
+I don’t know Stallman well. I know him well enough to know he is a hard
+man to like. He is driven, often impatient. His anger can flare at friend as 
easily
+as foe. He is uncompromising and persistent; patient in both.
+Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of
+code—when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like government, must be
+transparent to be free—then we will look back at this uncompromising and
+persistent programmer and recognize the vision he has fought to make real: the
+vision of a world where freedom and knowledge survives the compiler. And we
+will come to see that no man, through his deeds or words, has done as much to
+make possible the freedom that this next society could have.
+
+viii
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+We have not earned that freedom yet. We may well fail in securing it. But
+whether we succeed or fail, in these essays is a picture of what that freedom 
could
+be. And in the life that produced these words and works, there is inspiration
+for anyone who would, like Stallman, fight to create this freedom.
+Lawrence Lessig
+
+Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, the director of 
the
+Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, and the founder of Stanford Law
+School’s Center for Internet and Society. For much of his career, he focused 
his
+work on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright. He is the 
author of
+numerous books and has served as a board member of many organizations,
+including the Free Software Foundation.
+
+Preface to the Second Edition
+
+ix
+
+Preface to the Second Edition
+The second edition of Free Software, Free Society holds updated versions of 
most
+of the essays from the first edition, as well as many new essays published 
since
+the first edition.
+The essays about software patents are now in one section and those about
+copyright in another, to set an example of not grouping together these two 
laws,
+whose workings and effects on software are totally different.
+Another section presents the GNU licenses, with a new introduction written
+with Brett Smith giving their history and the motives for each of them. One
+of the essays explains why software projects should upgrade to version 3 of the
+GNU General Public License.
+There is now a section on issues of terminology, since the way we describe
+an issue affects how people think about it.
+The last two sections describe some of the traps free software developers and
+users face—new ways to lose your freedom, and how to avoid them.
+We have also added an index, to complement the appendix on software.
+We would like to thank Jeanne Rasata for managing the project, editing the
+book, formatting the text, and creating the index. Thanks also to Karl Berry
+for technical assistance with Texinfo, Brett Smith for all other technical help
+and for valuable feedback, and Rob Myers for formatting the cover.
+
+Part I:
+The GNU Project
+and Free Software
+
+Chapter 1: The Free Software Definition
+
+3
+
+1 The Free Software Definition
+We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true
+about a particular software program for it to be considered free software. From
+time to time we revise this definition to clarify it. If you would like to 
review
+the changes we’ve made, please see the History section, following the 
definition,
+at http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.
+“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the 
concept,
+you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free 
beer.”
+Free software is a matter of the users’ freedom to run, copy, distribute, 
study,
+change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program’s
+users have the four essential freedoms:
+• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
+• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do
+what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
+this.
+• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 
2).
+• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others 
(freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
+benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for
+this.
+A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you
+should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, 
either
+gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do
+these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for
+permission to do so.
+You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately 
in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If
+you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in
+particular, or in any particular way.
+The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or
+organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall 
job
+and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer
+or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user’s purpose that 
matters,
+not the developer’s purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for 
your
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 
2009,
+2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+The free software definition was first published in 1996, on http://gnu.org.
+This version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of 
Richard M.
+Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+4
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it 
for
+her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
+The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of
+the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions.
+(Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently 
installable
+free operating systems.) It is OK if there is no way to produce a binary or
+executable form for a certain program (since some languages don’t support 
that
+feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you
+find or develop a way to make them.
+In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom
+to publish improved versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the
+source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a 
necessary
+condition for free software. Obfuscated “source code” is not real source 
code and
+does not count as source code.
+Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the
+original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone 
else’s
+modified versions but refuse to run yours—a practice known as 
“tivoization” or
+(in its practitioners’ perverse terminology) as “secure boot”—freedom 
1 becomes
+a theoretical fiction rather than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. 
In
+other words, these binaries are not free software even if the source code they 
are
+compiled from is free.
+One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
+subroutines and modules. If the program’s license says that you cannot merge
+in a suitably licensed existing module—for instance, if it requires you to be
+the copyright holder of any code you add—then the license is too restrictive 
to
+qualify as free.
+Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions as free
+software. A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them; in other
+words, it does not have to be a copyleft license. However, a license that 
requires
+modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify as a free license.
+In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and irrevocable 
as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has
+the power to revoke the license, or retroactively change its terms, without 
your
+doing anything wrong to give cause, the software is not free.
+However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software
+are acceptable, when they don’t conflict with the central freedoms. For 
example,
+copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program,
+you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This 
rule
+does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be
+available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial 
distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; 
such free
+commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies
+of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless
+
+Chapter 1: The Free Software Definition
+
+5
+
+of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change
+the software, even to sell copies.
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your
+modifications are limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers
+an improvement, that is not freedom.
+However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if
+they don’t substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or 
your
+freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for
+the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove
+a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements 
are
+not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes,
+they are acceptable; you’re already making other changes to the program, so 
you
+won’t have trouble making a few more.
+Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make
+it available in that way also” can be acceptable too, on the same condition. 
An
+example of such an acceptable rule is one saying that if you have distributed a
+modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you must send
+one. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of whether to 
distribute
+your version at all.) Rules that require release of source code to the users 
for
+versions that you put into public use are also acceptable.
+In the GNU Project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for
+everyone. But noncopylefted free software also exists. We believe there are
+important reasons why it is better to use copyleft, but if your program is 
noncopylefted free software, it is still basically ethical. (See “Categories 
of Free and
+Nonfree Software” (p. 77) for a description of how “free software,” 
“copylefted
+software” and other categories of software relate to each other.)
+Sometimes government export control regulations and trade sanctions can
+constrain your freedom to distribute copies of programs internationally. 
Software
+developers do not have the power to eliminate or override these restrictions, 
but
+what they can and must do is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of
+the program. In this way, the restrictions will not affect activities and 
people
+outside the jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses 
must
+not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of any of the
+essential freedoms.
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits on
+what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a 
copyrightbased license respects freedom in the ways described above, it is 
unlikely to have
+some other sort of problem that we never anticipated (though this does happen
+occasionally). However, some free software licenses are based on contracts, and
+contracts can impose a much larger range of possible restrictions. That means
+there are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably restrictive
+and nonfree.
+We can’t possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a contract-based
+license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses 
cannot,
+
+6
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+and which isn’t mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about 
it, and
+we will probably conclude it is nonfree.
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like “give
+away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that the issue is about 
price, not
+freedom. Some common terms such as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you
+won’t endorse. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)” (p. 93) for a 
discussion
+of these terms. We also have a list of proper translations of “free 
software” into
+various languages (p. 253).
+Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software 
definition
+require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide whether a specific
+software license qualifies as a free software license, we judge it based on 
these
+criteria to determine whether it fits their spirit as well as the precise 
words. If
+a license includes unconscionable restrictions, we reject it, even if we did 
not
+anticipate the issue in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises 
an
+issue that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer, 
before
+we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach a conclusion
+about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make it easier to see why
+certain licenses do or don’t qualify.
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free 
software
+license, see our list of licenses, at http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.
+html. If the license you are concerned with is not listed there, you can ask us
+about it by sending us email at address@hidden
+If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the Free 
Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The proliferation of 
different
+free software licenses means increased work for users in understanding the 
licenses; we may be able to help you find an existing free software license that
+meets your needs.
+If that isn’t possible, if you really need a new license, with our help you 
can
+ensure that the license really is a free software license and avoid various 
practical
+problems.
+Beyond Software
+Software manuals must be free, for the same reasons that software must be free,
+and because the manuals are in effect part of the software.
+The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of practical
+use—that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge, such as educational
+works and reference works. Wikipedia is the best-known example.
+Any kind of work can be free, and the definition of free software has been
+extended to a definition of free cultural works1 applicable to any kind of 
works.
+
+1
+
+See http://freedomdefined.org.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+7
+
+2 The GNU Project
+The First Software-Sharing Community
+When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, I became
+part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many years. Sharing
+of software was not limited to our particular community; it is as old as 
computers,
+just as sharing of recipes is as old as cooking. But we did it more than most.
+The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the Incompatible 
Timesharing System) that the lab’s staff hackers1 had designed and written
+in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one of the large computers of the
+era. As a member of this community, an AI Lab staff system hacker, my job
+was to improve this system.
+We did not call our software “free software,” because that term did not yet
+exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from another university or a
+company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let them. If you saw
+someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program, you could always ask to
+see the source code, so that you could read it, change it, or cannibalize 
parts of
+it to make a new program.
+The Collapse of the Community
+The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital discontinued
+the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, elegant and powerful in the 60s, could not
+extend naturally to the larger address spaces that were becoming feasible in 
the
+80s. This meant that nearly all of the programs composing ITS were obsolete.
+The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. In
+1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of the hackers
+from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable to maintain itself.
+(The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these events, as well as giving a
+clear picture of this community in its prime.) When the AI Lab bought a new
+1
+
+The use of “hacker” to mean “security breaker” is a confusion on the 
part of the
+mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and continue using
+the word to mean someone who loves to program, someone who enjoys playful 
cleverness, or the combination of the two. See my article, “On Hacking,” at
+http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html.
+
+Copyright c 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 Richard Stallman
+The original version of this essay was published in Open Sources: Voices from
+the Open Source Revolution, by Chris DiBona and others (Sebastopol: O’Reilly
+Media, 1999), under the title “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software
+Movement.” This version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected 
Essays of
+Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+8
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators decided to use Digital’s nonfree 
timesharing
+system instead of ITS.
+The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had their
+own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you had to sign a
+nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.
+This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not to help
+your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule made by the
+owners of proprietary software was, “If you share with your neighbor, you 
are a
+pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make them.”
+The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system that says
+you are not allowed to share or change software—is antisocial, that it is 
unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise to some readers. But 
what
+else could we say about a system based on dividing the public and keeping users
+helpless? Readers who find the idea surprising may have taken the proprietary
+software social system as a given, or judged it on the terms suggested by 
proprietary software businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard 
to
+convince people that there is only one way to look at the issue.
+When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their “rights” or 
“stopping
+piracy,” what they actually say is secondary. The real message of these 
statements is in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the 
public is
+asked to accept without examination. Let’s therefore examine them.
+One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural
+right to own software and thus have power over all its users. (If this were a
+natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to the public, we could
+not object.) Interestingly, the US Constitution and legal tradition reject this
+view; copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial government-imposed
+monopoly that limits the users’ natural right to copy.
+Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about software
+is what jobs it allows you to do—that we computer users should not care what
+kind of society we are allowed to have.
+A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would
+never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not offer
+a company power over the users of the program. This assumption may have
+seemed plausible, before the free software movement demonstrated that we can
+make plenty of useful software without putting chains on it.
+If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues based on
+ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first, we arrive at very
+different conclusions. Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit
+their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the 
basis
+of society.
+There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning behind
+this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the article “Why Software Should 
Not
+Have Owners” (p. 37).
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+9
+
+A Stark Moral Choice
+With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. Instead, I faced
+a stark moral choice.
+The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing 
nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker. Most 
likely I would
+also be developing software that was released under nondisclosure agreements,
+thus adding to the pressure on other people to betray their fellows too.
+I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing code.
+But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on years of building
+walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life making the world a worse
+place.
+I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure 
agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI Lab the source code 
for
+the control program for our printer. (The lack of certain features in this 
program
+made use of the printer extremely frustrating.) So I could not tell myself that
+nondisclosure agreements were innocent. I was very angry when he refused to
+share with us; I could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone else.
+Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the computer
+field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they would still be wasted.
+I would not be culpable for dividing and restricting computer users, but it 
would
+happen nonetheless.
+So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the good. I
+asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could write, so as to make
+a community possible once again?
+The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system. That
+is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an operating 
system,
+you can do many things; without one, you cannot run the computer at all.
+With a free operating system, we could again have a community of cooperating
+hackers—and invite anyone to join. And anyone would be able to use a computer
+without starting out by conspiring to deprive his or her friends.
+As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job. So even
+though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I was elected to 
do
+the job. I chose to make the system compatible with Unix so that it would be
+portable, and so that Unix users could easily switch to it. The name GNU was
+chosen, following a hacker tradition, as a recursive acronym for “GNU’s Not
+Unix.”
+An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run other
+programs. In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the name included
+command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters, debuggers, text 
editors, mailers, and much more. ITS had them, Multics had them, VMS had
+them, and Unix had them. The GNU operating system would include them too.
+Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel:2
+2
+
+As an Atheist, I don’t follow any religious leaders, but I sometimes find I 
admire
+something one of them has said.
+
+10
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
+If I am only for myself, what am I?
+If not now, when?
+
+The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit.
+Free as in Freedom
+The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it has nothing to do 
with
+price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition of free 
software.
+A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:
+• You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
+• You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To
+make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to the source
+code, since making changes in a program without having the source code
+is exceedingly difficult.)
+• You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee.
+• You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the program, so
+that the community can benefit from your improvements.
+Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction 
between
+selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is 
crucial:
+collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community,
+and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software 
development.
+Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections
+is not free software.
+Because of the ambiguity of “free,” people have long looked for 
alternatives,
+but no one has found a better term. The English language has more words
+and nuances than any other, but it lacks a simple, unambiguous, word that
+means “free,” as in freedom—“unfettered” being the word that comes 
closest in
+meaning. Such alternatives as “liberated,” “freedom,” and “open” 
have either
+the wrong meaning or some other disadvantage.
+GNU Software and the GNU System
+Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into reach, I
+decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software wherever that was
+possible. For example, I decided at the very beginning to use TEX as the 
principal
+text formatter; a few years later, I decided to use the X Window System rather
+than writing another window system for GNU.
+Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the collection
+of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that are not GNU
+software, programs that were developed by other people and projects for their
+own purposes, but which we can use because they are free software.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+11
+
+Commencing the Project
+In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software. Leaving
+MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere with distributing
+GNU as free software. If I had remained on the staff, MIT could have claimed
+to own the work, and could have imposed their own distribution terms, or even
+turned the work into a proprietary software package. I had no intention of 
doing
+a large amount of work only to see it become useless for its intended purpose:
+creating a new software-sharing community.
+However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly invited
+me to keep using the lab’s facilities.
+The First Steps
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free University
+Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for “free” is written
+with a v.) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple languages, including
+C and Pascal, and to support multiple target machines. I wrote to its author
+asking if GNU could use it.
+He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the compiler
+was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU Project would
+be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler.
+Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained
+the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multiplatform compiler
+developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was written in, an
+extended version of Pascal, designed to be a system-programming language. I
+added a C front end, and began porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer.
+But I had to give that up when I discovered that the compiler needed many
+megabytes of stack space, while the available 68000 Unix system would only
+allow 64k.
+I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the entire
+input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree into a chain of
+“instructions,” and then generating the whole output file, without ever 
freeing
+any storage. At this point, I concluded I would have to write a new compiler
+from scratch. That new compiler is now known as GCC; none of the Pastel
+compiler is used in it, but I managed to adapt and use the C front end that I
+had written. But that was some years later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs.
+GNU Emacs
+I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was
+beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to do
+editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done my editing 
on
+other kinds of machines until then.
+At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the
+question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous ftp 
server
+on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer, prep.ai.mit.edu, thus
+
+12
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+became the principal GNU ftp distribution site; when it was decommissioned a
+few years later, we transferred the name to our new ftp server.) But at that
+time, many of the interested people were not on the Internet and could not get
+a copy by ftp. So the question was, what would I say to them?
+I could have said, “Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a copy
+for you.” Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 Emacs: 
tell
+them, “Mail me a tape and a SASE (self-addressed stamped envelope), and I
+will mail it back with Emacs on it.” But I had no job, and I was looking for 
ways
+to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape
+to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free 
software
+distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute 
entire
+Linux-based GNU systems.
+Is a Program Free for Every User?
+If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author, this does
+not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone who has a copy of 
it.
+For example, public domain software (software that is not copyrighted) is free
+software; but anyone can make a proprietary modified version of it. Likewise,
+many free programs are copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive
+licenses which allow proprietary modified versions.
+The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System. Developed at 
MIT, and released as free software with a permissive license, it was
+soon adopted by various computer companies. They added X to their proprietary 
Unix systems, in binary form only, and covered by the same nondisclosure
+agreement. These copies of X were no more free software than Unix was.
+The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a problem—
+they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was not freedom, just
+“success,” defined as “having many users.” They did not care whether 
these
+users had freedom, only about having many of them.
+This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of counting
+the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question, “Is this 
program
+free?” If you judged based on the freedom provided by the distribution terms 
of
+the MIT release, you would say that X was free software. But if you measured
+the freedom of the average user of X, you would have to say it was proprietary
+software. Most X users were running the proprietary versions that came with
+Unix systems, not the free version.
+Copyleft and the GNU GPL
+The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So we
+needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software from being
+turned into proprietary software. The method we use is called “copyleft.”3
+3
+
+In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me a letter.
+On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings, including this one:
+“Copyleft—all rights reversed.” I used the word “copyleft” to name 
the distribution concept I was developing at the time.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+13
+
+Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of its 
usual
+purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it becomes a means for
+keeping the program free.
+The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run the 
program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute modified 
versions—
+but not permission to add restrictions of their own. Thus, the crucial freedoms
+that define “free software” are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they
+become inalienable rights.
+For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This ensures
+that work based on ours becomes available to our community if it is published.
+When programmers who have jobs as programmers volunteer to improve GNU
+software, it is copyleft that prevents their employers from saying, “You 
can’t
+share those changes, because we are going to use them to make our proprietary
+version of the program.”
+The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to ensure
+freedom for every user of the program. The companies that privatized the X
+Window System usually made some changes to port it to their systems and
+hardware. These changes were small compared with the great extent of X,
+but they were not trivial. If making changes were an excuse to deny the users
+freedom, it would be easy for anyone to take advantage of the excuse.
+A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code. Such
+a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms are lacking for
+the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as well. To permit such 
combinations would open a hole big enough to sink a ship. Therefore, a crucial
+requirement for copyleft is to plug this hole: anything added to or combined
+with a copylefted program must be such that the larger combined version is also
+free and copylefted.
+The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU software
+is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. We have other kinds
+of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances. GNU manuals are copylefted
+also, but use a much simpler kind of copyleft, because the complexity of the
+GNU GPL is not necessary for manuals.4
+The Free Software Foundation
+As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved in the
+GNU Project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding once again. So in
+1985 we created the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for
+free software development. The FSF also took over the Emacs tape distribution
+business; later it extended this by adding other free software (both GNU and
+non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling free manuals as well.
+Most of the FSF’s income used to come from sales of copies of free software
+and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries,
+nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to redistribute and modify), and
+4
+
+We now use the GNU Free Documentation License (p. 193) for documentation.
+
+14
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Deluxe Distributions (distributions for which we built the whole collection of
+software for the customer’s choice of platform). Today the FSF still sells 
manuals
+and other gear, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members’ dues. You 
can
+join the FSF at http://fsf.org/join.
+Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a number
+of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the C library and the shell.
+The GNU C library is what every program running on a GNU/Linux system uses
+to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a member of the Free Software
+Foundation staff, Roland McGrath. The shell used on most GNU/Linux systems
+is BASH, the Bourne Again Shell,5 which was developed by FSF employee Brian
+Fox.
+We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was
+not just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a complete
+operating system, and these programs were needed for that goal.
+Free Software Support
+The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business practice, 
but
+it is not against business. When businesses respect the users’ freedom, we 
wish
+them success.
+Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software business.
+When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way to make a living. I 
found it in selling services relating to the free software I had developed.
+This included teaching, for subjects such as how to program GNU Emacs and
+how to customize GCC, and software development, mostly porting GCC to new
+platforms.
+Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a number
+of corporations. Some distribute free software collections on CD-ROM; others
+sell support at levels ranging from answering user questions, to fixing bugs, 
to
+adding major new features. We are even beginning to see free software companies
+based on launching new free software products.
+Watch out, though—a number of companies that associate themselves with
+the term “open source” actually base their business on nonfree software 
that
+works with free software. These are not free software companies, they are 
proprietary software companies whose products tempt users away from freedom.
+They call these programs “value-added packages,” which shows the values 
they
+would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If we value freedom more,
+we should call them “freedom-subtracted” packages.
+5
+
+“Bourne Again Shell” is a play on the name “Bourne Shell,” which was 
the usual
+shell on Unix.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+15
+
+Technical Goals
+The principal goal of GNU is to be free software. Even if GNU had no technical 
advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage, allowing users to
+cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the user’s freedom.
+But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to the
+work—for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid arbitrary
+fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes wherever that made
+sense.
+In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by deciding
+not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit machines would be the
+norm by the time the GNU system was finished), and to make no effort to reduce
+memory usage unless it exceeded a megabyte. In programs for which handling
+very large files was not crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire
+input file into core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O.
+These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix counterparts 
in reliability and speed.
+Donated Computers
+As the GNU Project’s reputation grew, people began offering to donate 
machines
+running Unix to the project. These were very useful, because the easiest way
+to develop components of GNU was to do it on a Unix system, and replace the
+components of that system one by one. But they raised an ethical issue: whether
+it was right for us to have a copy of Unix at all.
+Unix was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU Project’s philosophy
+said that we should not use proprietary software. But, applying the same 
reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence in self defense is 
justified, I
+concluded that it was legitimate to use a proprietary package when that was
+crucial for developing a free replacement that would help others stop using the
+proprietary package.
+But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil. Today we no 
longer
+have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them with free operating
+systems. If we could not replace a machine’s operating system with a free 
one,
+we replaced the machine instead.
+The GNU Task List
+As the GNU Project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system components
+were found or developed, eventually it became useful to make a list of the 
remaining gaps. We used it to recruit developers to write the missing pieces. 
This
+list became known as the GNU Task List. In addition to missing Unix 
components, we listed various other useful software and documentation projects 
that,
+we thought, a truly complete system ought to have.
+
+16
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Today,6 hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task List—those
+jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But the list is full of
+projects that some might call “applications.” Any program that appeals to
+more than a narrow class of users would be a useful thing to add to an 
operating
+system.
+Even games are included in the task list—and have been since the beginning.
+Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But compatibility was not
+an issue for games, so we did not follow the list of games that Unix had. 
Instead,
+we listed a spectrum of different kinds of games that users might like.
+The GNU Library GPL
+The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU Library
+General Public License,7 which gives permission to link proprietary software
+with the library. Why make this exception?
+It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says proprietary
+software products are entitled to include our code. (Why contribute to a 
project
+predicated on refusing to share with us?) Using the LGPL for the C library, or
+for any library, is a matter of strategy.
+The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler comes
+with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available only to free 
software would not have given free software any advantage—it would only have
+discouraged use of our library.
+One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this includes
+GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library. So the distribution terms
+of the GNU C library determine whether it is possible to compile a proprietary
+program for the GNU system. There is no ethical reason to allow proprietary
+applications on the GNU system, but strategically it seems that disallowing
+them would do more to discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage
+development of free applications. That is why using the Library GPL is a good
+strategy for the C library.
+For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be considered on a 
case-bycase basis. When a library does a special job that can help write 
certain kinds of
+programs, then releasing it under the GPL, limiting it to free programs only, 
is a
+way of helping other free software developers, giving them an advantage against
+proprietary software.
+Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide commandline 
editing for BASH. Readline is released under the ordinary GNU GPL, not
+the Library GPL. This probably does reduce the amount Readline is used, but
+that is no loss for us. Meanwhile, at least one useful application has been 
made
+6
+
+7
+
+That was written in 1998. In 2009 we no longer maintain a long task list. The
+community develops free software so fast that we can’t even keep track of it 
all.
+Instead, we have a list of High Priority Projects, a much shorter list of 
projects
+we really want to encourage people to write.
+This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License, to avoid 
giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+17
+
+free software specifically so it could use Readline, and that is a real gain 
for the
+community.
+Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides; free
+software developers need to make advantages for each other. I hope some day
+we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel
+available to proprietary software, providing useful modules to serve as 
building
+blocks in new free software, and adding up to a major advantage for further 
free
+software development.
+Scratching an Itch?
+Eric Raymond8 says that “Every good work of software starts by scratching a
+developer’s personal itch.”9 Maybe that happens sometimes, but many 
essential
+pieces of GNU software were developed in order to have a complete free 
operating
+system. They come from a vision and a plan, not from impulse.
+For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
+needs a C library, BASH because a Unix-like system needs a shell, and GNU tar
+because a Unix-like system needs a tar program. The same is true for my own
+programs—the GNU C compiler, GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.
+Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our
+freedom. Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program, which had
+been lost to the community because of the LZW patents. We found people to
+develop LessTif, and more recently started GNOME and Harmony, to address
+the problems caused by certain proprietary libraries (see below). We are 
developing the GNU Privacy Guard to replace popular nonfree encryption software,
+because users should not have to choose between privacy and freedom.
+Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the work,
+and many features were added to them by various people for the sake of their
+own needs and interests. But that is not why the programs exist.
+Unexpected Developments
+At the beginning of the GNU Project, I imagined that we would develop the
+whole GNU system, then release it as a whole. That is not how it happened.
+Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix system, each 
component could run on Unix systems long before a complete GNU
+system existed. Some of these programs became popular, and users began 
extending them and porting them—to the various incompatible versions of Unix,
+and sometimes to other systems as well.
+The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both
+funds and contributors to the GNU Project. But it probably also delayed 
completion of a minimal working system by several years, as GNU developers’ 
time
+8
+9
+
+Eric Raymond is a prominent open source advocate; see “Why Open Source
+Misses the Point” (p. 83).
+Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open
+Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, rev. ed. (Sebastopol, Calif.: 
O’Reilly,
+2001), p. 23.
+
+18
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+was put into maintaining these ports and adding features to the existing 
components, rather than moving on to write one missing component after another.
+
+The GNU Hurd
+By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing component 
was the kernel. We had decided to implement our kernel as a collection
+of server processes running on top of Mach. Mach is a microkernel developed at
+Carnegie Mellon University and then at the University of Utah; the GNU Hurd
+is a collection of servers (i.e., a herd of GNUs) that run on top of Mach, and 
do
+the various jobs of the Unix kernel. The start of development was delayed as we
+waited for Mach to be released as free software, as had been promised.
+One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the
+hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a source-level
+debugger to do it with. This part of the job had been done already, in Mach,
+and we expected to debug the Hurd servers as user programs, with GDB. But
+it took a long time to make that possible, and the multithreaded servers that
+send messages to each other have turned out to be very hard to debug. Making
+the Hurd work solidly has stretched on for many years.
+Alix
+The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd. Its original
+name was Alix—named after the woman who was my sweetheart at the time.
+She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her name would fit
+a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a joke, she told her
+friends, “Someone should name a kernel after me.” I said nothing, but 
decided
+to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
+It did not stay that way. Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main developer
+of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix to refer to a 
certain
+part of the kernel—the part that would trap system calls and handle them by
+sending messages to Hurd servers.
+Later, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; independently, the
+Hurd design was changed so that the C library would send messages directly to
+servers, and this made the Alix component disappear from the design.
+But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name Alix
+in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her. So she did have the chance
+to find a kernel named after her.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+19
+
+Linux and GNU/Linux
+The GNU Hurd is not suitable for production use, and we don’t know if it ever
+will be. The capability-based design has problems that result directly from the
+flexibility of the design, and it is not clear solutions exist.
+Fortunately, another kernel is available. In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed
+a Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. In 1992, he made Linux free
+software; combining Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in
+a complete free operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in
+itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a version of 
the
+GNU system today.
+We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
+combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel.
+Challenges in Our Future
+We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free software. This
+does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable. Several challenges make the
+future of free software uncertain; meeting them will require steadfast effort 
and
+endurance, sometimes lasting for years. It will require the kind of 
determination
+that people display when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take
+it away.
+The following four sections discuss these challenges.
+Secret Hardware
+Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware specifications 
secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers so that Linux and XFree86 
can
+support new hardware. We have complete free systems today, but we will not
+have them tomorrow if we cannot support tomorrow’s computers.
+There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do reverse
+engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The rest of us can 
choose
+the hardware that is supported by free software; as our numbers increase, 
secrecy
+of specifications will become a self-defeating policy.
+Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with sufficient
+determination to undertake it? Yes—if we have built up a strong feeling that
+free software is a matter of principle, and nonfree drivers are intolerable. 
And
+will large numbers of us spend extra money, or even a little extra time, so we
+can use free drivers? Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.
+[2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well. There is a free BIOS,
+coreboot; the problem is getting specs for machines so that coreboot can 
support
+them.]
+
+20
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Nonfree Libraries
+A nonfree library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap for free
+software developers. The library’s attractive features are the bait; if you 
use the
+library, you fall into the trap, because your program cannot usefully be part 
of
+a free operating system. (Strictly speaking, we could include your program, but
+it won’t run with the library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses 
the
+proprietary library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers
+into the trap.
+The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the 80s.
+Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was clear what problem
+Motif would cause for them later on. The GNU Project responded in two ways:
+by asking individual free software projects to support the free X Toolkit 
widgets
+as well as Motif, and by asking for someone to write a free replacement for 
Motif. The job took many years; LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers,
+became powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997.
+Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree GUI toolkit library, called Qt, was
+used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE.
+Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not use
+the library. However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux systems who
+were not strict about sticking with free software added KDE to their systems—
+producing a system with more capabilities, but less freedom. The KDE group
+was actively encouraging more programmers to use Qt, and millions of new
+“Linux users” had never been exposed to the idea that there was a problem 
in
+this. The situation appeared grim.
+The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
+GNOME and Harmony.
+GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU’s desktop
+project. Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the support
+of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop facilities, but
+using free software exclusively. It has technical advantages as well, such as
+supporting a variety of languages, not just C++. But its main purpose was
+freedom: not to require the use of any nonfree software.
+Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it possible
+to run KDE software without using Qt.
+In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license which,
+when carried out, should make Qt free software. There is no way to be sure,
+but I think that this was partly due to the community’s firm response to the
+problem that Qt posed when it was nonfree. (The new license is inconvenient
+and inequitable, so it remains desirable to avoid using Qt.)
+[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU
+GPL, which essentially solved this problem.]
+How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree library? Will the whole
+community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will many of us give
+up freedom for convenience, and produce a major problem? Our future depends
+on our philosophy.
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+21
+
+Software Patents
+The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put algorithms
+and features off limits to free software for up to 20 years. The LZW 
compression
+algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, and we still cannot release free
+software to produce proper compressed GIFs. [As of 2009 they have expired.]
+In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was removed from
+distribution under threat of a patent suit.
+There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
+patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. But each
+of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a patent may force all
+free software to lack some feature that users want. What will we do when this
+happens?
+Those of us who value free software for freedom’s sake will stay with free
+software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the patented 
features. But those who value free software because they expect it to be 
technically
+superior are likely to call it a failure when a patent holds it back. Thus, 
while
+it is useful to talk about the practical effectiveness of the “bazaar” 
model of
+development, and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not
+stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle.
+Free Documentation
+The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the 
software—it is
+the lack of good free manuals that we can include in our systems. Documentation
+is an essential part of any software package; when an important free software
+package does not come with a good free manual, that is a major gap. We have
+many such gaps today.
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not price.
+The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free software:
+it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms. Redistribution (including
+commercial sale) must be permitted, online and on paper, so that the manual
+can accompany every copy of the program.
+Permission for modification is crucial too. As a general rule, I don’t 
believe
+that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of 
articles
+and books. For example, I don’t think you or I are obliged to give permission
+to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.
+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 nonfree manual, which does not allow programmers to
+be conscientious and finish the job, does not fill our community’s needs.
+Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem. For
+example, requirements to preserve the original author’s copyright notice, the
+distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK. It is also no problem to 
require
+modified versions to include notice that they were modified, even to have 
entire
+
+22
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+sections that may not be deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal 
with
+nontechnical topics. These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they
+don’t stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to fit the
+modified program. In other words, they don’t block the free software 
community
+from making full use of the manual.
+However, it must be possible to modify all the technical content of the 
manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media, through all the 
usual
+channels; otherwise, the restrictions do obstruct the community, the manual is
+not free, and we need another manual.
+Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to produce 
a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends on philosophy.
+We Must Talk about Freedom
+Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux systems such
+as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat “Linux.” Free software has developed such
+practical advantages that users are flocking to it for purely practical 
reasons.
+The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing free
+software, more customers for free software businesses, and more ability to 
encourage companies to develop commercial free software instead of proprietary
+software products.
+But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the philosophy
+it is based on, and this leads to trouble. Our ability to meet the challenges 
and
+threats described above depends on the will to stand firm for freedom. To make
+sure our community has this will, we need to spread the idea to the new users
+as they come into the community.
+But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our 
community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of our 
community.
+We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts in balance.
+“Open Source”
+Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a part
+of the community decided to stop using the term “free software” and say 
“open
+source software” instead.
+Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of “free” with
+“gratis”—a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit of 
principle
+that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU Project, and to
+appeal instead to executives and business users, many of whom hold an ideology
+that places profit above freedom, above community, above principle. Thus, the
+rhetoric of “open source” focuses on the potential to make high-quality, 
powerful
+software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle.
+The “Linux” magazines are a clear example of this—they are filled with
+advertisements for proprietary software that works with GNU/Linux. When the
+next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines warn programmers to stay away
+from it, or will they run ads for it?
+
+Chapter 2: The GNU Project
+
+23
+
+The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways; all
+else being equal, it is useful. But winning their support by speaking even less
+about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it makes the previous imbalance
+between outreach and civics education even worse.
+“Free software” and “open source” describe the same category of 
software,
+more or less, but say different things about the software, and about values. 
The
+GNU Project continues to use the term “free software,” to express the idea 
that
+freedom, not just technology, is important.
+Try!
+Yoda’s aphorism (“There is no ‘try’ ”) sounds neat, but it doesn’t 
work for me. I
+have done most of my work while anxious about whether I could do the job, and
+unsure that it would be enough to achieve the goal if I did. But I tried 
anyway,
+because there was no one but me between the enemy and my city. Surprising
+myself, I have sometimes succeeded.
+Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen. Then I found another
+threatened city, and got ready for another battle. Over time, I’ve learned to
+look for threats and put myself between them and my city, calling on other
+hackers to come and join me.
+Nowadays, often I’m not the only one. It is a relief and a joy when I see
+a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize, this city may
+survive—for now. But the dangers are greater each year, and now Microsoft
+has explicitly targeted our community. We can’t take the future of freedom 
for
+granted. Don’t take it for granted! If you want to keep your freedom, you 
must
+be prepared to defend it.
+
+Chapter 3: The Initial Announcement of the GNU Operating System
+
+25
+
+3 The Initial Announcement of the
+GNU Operating System
+This is the original announcement of the GNU Project, posted by Richard 
Stallman on 27 September 1983.
+The actual history of the GNU Project differs in many ways from this initial
+plan. For example, the beginning was delayed until January 1984. Several of
+the philosophical concepts of free software were not clarified until a few 
years
+later.
+From address@hidden
+From: address@hidden
+Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.usoft
+Subject: new Unix implementation
+Date: Tue, 27-Sep-83 12:35:59 EST
+Organization: MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA
+Free Unix!
+Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible
+software system called GNU (for Gnu’s Not Unix), and give it away free1
+to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and
+equipment are greatly needed.
+To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write
+and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, assembler, and a few
+other things. After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire
+game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things. We hope to supply,
+eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and
+anything else useful, including on-line and hardcopy documentation.
+GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We
+will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with
+other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames,
+file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps,
+terminal-independent display support, and eventually a Lisp-based window
+system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can
+share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming
+languages. We will have network software based on MIT’s chaosnet protocol,
+far superior to UUCP. We may also have something compatible with UUCP.
+1
+
+The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to
+pay for permission to use the GNU system. But the words don’t make this 
clear,
+and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be
+distributed at little or no charge. That was never the intent.
+
+Copyright c 1983 Richard Stallman
+This announcement is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of
+Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+26
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Who Am I?
+I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor,
+now at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked extensively
+on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the Incompatible
+Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I pioneered
+terminal-independent display support in ITS. In addition I have implemented
+one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp machines.
+Why I Must Write GNU
+I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
+share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a
+nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.
+So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, I
+have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I
+will be able to get along without any software that is not free.
+How You Can Contribute
+I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I’m
+asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
+One computer manufacturer has already offered to provide a machine. But we
+could use more. One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is
+that GNU will run on them at an early date. The machine had better be able
+to operate in a residential area, and not require sophisticated cooling or
+power.
+Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate
+of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time
+distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written
+parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing
+Unix, this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by
+Unix compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it
+will probably work with the rest of GNU.
+If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or part
+time. The salary won’t be high, but I’m looking for people for whom knowing
+they are helping humanity is as important as money. I view this as a way of
+enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by
+sparing them the need to make a living in another way.
+For more information, contact me.
+Arpanet mail:
address@hidden
+Usenet:
address@hidden
+US Snail:
+Richard Stallman
+166 Prospect St
+Cambridge, MA 02139
+
address@hidden
+
+Chapter 4: The GNU Manifesto
+
+27
+
+4 The GNU Manifesto
+The GNU Manifesto was written by Richard Stallman at the beginning of
+the GNU Project, to ask for participation and support. For the first few
+years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now
+it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.
+Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings that 
different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added since 1993
+help clarify these points.
+For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please
+see the information available on our web server, in particular our list of
+software. For how to contribute, see http://gnu.org/help.
+
+What’s GNU? Gnu’s Not Unix!
+GNU, which stands for Gnu’s Not Unix, is the name for the complete 
Unixcompatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away 
free to
+everyone who can use it.1 Several other volunteers are helping me. 
Contributions
+of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.
+So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands, a
+source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and around
+35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A new portable
+optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released this year. An
+initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When
+the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU
+system suitable for program development. We will use TEX as our text formatter,
+but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, portable X window system
+as well. After this we will add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a
+spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things, plus online documentation. We hope
+1
+
+The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to
+pay for permission to use the GNU system. But the words don’t make this 
clear,
+and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be
+distributed at little or no charge. That was never the intent; later on, the 
manifesto mentions the possibility of companies providing the service of 
distribution
+for a profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between 
“free”
+in the sense of freedom and “free” in the sense of price. Free software is 
software
+that users have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may obtain
+copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain copies—and if the funds help 
support improving the software, so much the better. The important thing is that
+everyone who has a copy has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
+
+Copyright c 1985, 1993, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
+“The GNU Manifesto” was originally published in Dr. Dobb’s Journal, vol. 
10,
+n. 3 (March 1985). This footnoted version is part of Free Software, Free 
Society:
+Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+28
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+to supply, eventually, everything useful that normally comes with a Unix 
system,
+and more.
+GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix.
+We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience
+with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer file names,
+file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file name completion perhaps,
+terminal-independent display support, and perhaps eventually a Lisp-based 
window system through which several Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs
+can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming
+languages. We will try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols
+for communication.
+GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual
+memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra
+effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants to
+use it on them.
+To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the g in the word “GNU” when
+it is the name of this project.
+Why I Must Write GNU
+I consider that the Golden Rule requires that if I like a program I must share
+it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and
+conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to 
break
+solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a 
nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked 
within
+the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other 
inhospitalities,
+but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution 
where
+such things are done for me against my will.
+So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to
+put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get 
along
+without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI Lab to deny
+MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.2
+Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
+Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of 
Unix
+seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without 
spoiling
+them. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many other
+people to adopt.
+2
+
+The expression “give away” is another indication that I had not yet 
clearly separated the issue of price from that of freedom. We now recommend 
avoiding this
+expression when talking about free software. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with
+Care)” (p. 93) for more explanation.
+
+Chapter 4: The GNU Manifesto
+
+29
+
+How GNU Will Be Available
+GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and
+redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its further 
redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. 
I want
+to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
+Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
+I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to
+help. Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
+software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to feel
+in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The
+fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs;
+marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to
+treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must choose between 
friendship
+and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important.
+But those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. They
+become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making money.
+By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can
+be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an
+example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing. This can
+give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use software that is not
+free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this is an important happiness
+that money cannot replace.
+How You Can Contribute
+I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I’m
+asking individuals for donations of programs and work.3
+One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will
+run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use
+systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of 
sophisticated
+cooling or power.
+I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for
+GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard
+to coordinate; the independently written parts would not work together. But
+for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A complete
+Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which is documented
+separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If 
each
+contributor can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and
+make it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these
+3
+
+Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the High Priority Projects list, 
at
+http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/, and the GNU Help Wanted
+list, the general task list for GNU software packages, at http://savannah.gnu.
+org/people/?type_id=1. For other ways to help, see http://gnu.org/help/
+help.html.
+
+30
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy to create
+a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will be a feasible task.
+(The kernel will require closer communication and will be worked on by a small,
+tight group.)
+If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or part
+time. The salary won’t be high by programmers’ standards, but I’m 
looking for
+people for whom building community spirit is as important as making money. I
+view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies 
to
+working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a living in another way.
+Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
+Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free,
+just like air.4
+This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license.
+It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be
+avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.
+Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user
+who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or
+hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no
+longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources
+and is in sole position to make changes.
+Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by
+encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard’s 
computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on the
+system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by actually 
refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by this.
+Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what
+one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
+Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing
+of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome
+mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a person
+must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey them. Consider
+a space station where air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each
+breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day
+and all night is intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. 
And
+the TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are outrageous.
+It’s better to support the air plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.
+Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing,
+and as productive. It ought to be as free.
+4
+
+This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between the two 
different
+meanings of “free.” The statement as it stands is not false—you can get 
copies of
+GNU software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does 
suggest the wrong idea.
+
+Chapter 4: The GNU Manifesto
+
+31
+
+Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU’s Goals
+“Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can’t rely on 
any
+support.”
+“You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support.”
+If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without
+service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU
+free ought to be profitable.5
+We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work
+and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a
+software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the vendor
+will tell you to get lost.
+If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to have
+all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available person to 
fix
+your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual. With Unix, the price
+of sources puts this out of consideration for most businesses. With GNU this
+will be easy. It is still possible for there to be no available competent 
person,
+but this problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does
+not eliminate all the world’s problems, only some of them.
+Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:
+doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don’t know
+how.
+Such services could be provided by companies that sell just handholding and
+repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and get a
+product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service having got 
the
+product free. The service companies will compete in quality and price; users 
will
+not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don’t need the
+service should be able to use the program without paying for the service.
+“You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must charge for
+the program to support that.”
+“It’s no use advertising a program people can get free.”
+There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to
+inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be
+true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this is
+really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and mailing GNU
+for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its advertising and more. 
This
+way, only the users who benefit from the advertising pay for it.
+On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such
+companies don’t succeed, this will show that advertising was not really 
necessary
+to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don’t want to let the 
free
+market decide this?6
+5
+6
+
+Several such companies now exist.
+Although it is a charity rather than a company, the Free Software Foundation
+for 10 years raised most of its funds from its distribution service. You can 
order
+things from the FSF to support its work.
+
+32
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+“My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitive 
edge.”
+GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.
+You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your 
competitors
+be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, 
while
+benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating 
system,
+you will not like GNU, but that’s tough on you. If your business is something
+else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling
+operating systems.
+I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many manufacturers 
and users, reducing the cost to each.7
+“Don’t programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?”
+If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be
+a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the 
results. If
+programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the
+same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these 
programs.
+“Shouldn’t a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”
+There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
+one’s income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the
+means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.
+Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
+destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the
+program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives
+from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful
+consequences are deliberate destruction.
+The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
+wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the 
mutual
+destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not 
like
+the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to
+consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for
+one’s creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or 
part of
+that creativity.
+“Won’t programmers starve?”
+I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot
+manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we
+are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street 
making
+faces, and starving. We do something else.
+But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner’s implicit
+assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly
+be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
+7
+
+A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to support maintenance 
of the GNU C Compiler.
+
+Chapter 4: The GNU Manifesto
+
+33
+
+The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible
+for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
+Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the
+most common basis8 because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited,
+or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of
+organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to
+organize any kind of business.
+Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now.
+But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an 
injustice
+that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the
+same, that would not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make
+considerably more than that.)
+“Don’t people have a right to control how their creativity is used?”
+“Control over the use of one’s ideas” really constitutes control over 
other
+people’s lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
+People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights9 carefully
+(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual 
property. The
+kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes
+were created by specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.
+For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to
+disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society 
rather
+than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for a patent was
+short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the art. Since patents
+are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a 
license
+agreement are small compared with setting up production, the patents often do
+not do much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented
+products.
+The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently
+copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. This practice was 
useful,
+8
+
+9
+
+I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary software was the most common
+basis for making money in software. It seems that actually the most common
+business model was and is development of custom software. That does not offer
+the possibility of collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing real 
work in
+order to keep getting income. The custom software business would continue to
+exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world. Therefore, I no longer
+expect that most paid programmers would earn less in a free software world.
+In the 1980s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak of “the 
issue”
+of “intellectual property.” That term is obviously biased; more subtle is 
the fact
+that it lumps together various disparate laws which raise very different 
issues.
+Nowadays I urge people to reject the term “intellectual property” 
entirely, lest it
+lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be
+clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately. See “Did 
You
+Say ‘Intellectual Property’ ? It’s a Seductive Mirage” (p. 89) for 
further explanation of how this term spreads confusion and bias.
+
+34
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+and is the only way many authors’ works have survived even in part. The 
copyright system was created expressly for the purpose of encouraging 
authorship.
+In the domain for which it was invented—books, which could be copied 
economically only on a printing press—it did little harm, and did not 
obstruct most of
+the individuals who read the books.
+All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society because
+it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would benefit by
+granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask: are we really
+better off granting such license? What kind of act are we licensing a person to
+do?
+The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred
+years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor
+to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which
+are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed,
+combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is
+harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person
+should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to.
+“Competition makes things get done better.”
+The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage 
everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a
+good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way. If
+the runners forget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no
+matter how, they may find other strategies—such as, attacking other runners.
+If the runners get into a fist fight, they will all finish late.
+Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist
+fight. Sad to say, the only referee we’ve got does not seem to object to 
fights;
+he just regulates them (“For every ten yards you run, you can fire one 
shot”).
+He really ought to break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to 
fight.
+“Won’t everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?”
+Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.
+Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the people
+who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians who keep at
+it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.
+But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the
+situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So the
+right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary incentive? My
+experience shows that they will.
+For more than ten years, many of the world’s best programmers worked at the
+Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had 
anywhere
+else. They got many kinds of nonmonetary rewards: fame and appreciation, for
+example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
+Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting
+work for a lot of money.
+
+Chapter 4: The GNU Manifesto
+
+35
+
+What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches;
+but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect 
and
+demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying
+ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.
+“We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop helping
+our neighbors, we have to obey.”
+You’re never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. 
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
+“Programmers need to make a living somehow.”
+In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that 
programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program. This
+way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the most
+money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to find 
other
+ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
+A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of 
operating systems onto the new hardware.
+The sale of teaching, handholding and maintenance services could also employ 
programmers.
+People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware,10 asking for
+donations from satisfied users, or selling handholding services. I have met 
people
+who are already working this way successfully.
+Users with related needs can form users’ groups, and pay dues. A group
+would contract with programming companies to write programs that the group’s
+members would like to use.
+All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
+Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as
+a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend
+on software development.
+But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself,
+he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own
+choosing—often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. 
He
+can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
+The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax,
+weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
+The consequences:
+• The computer-using community supports software development.
+• This community decides what level of support is needed.
+• Users who care which projects their share is spent on can choose this for
+themselves.
+10
+
+Subsequently we learned to distinguish between “free software” and 
“freeware.”
+The term “freeware” means software you are free to redistribute, but 
usually you
+are not free to study and change the source code, so most of it is not free 
software. See “Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)” (p. 93) for more 
explanation.
+
+36
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world,
+where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be
+free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, 
after
+spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation,
+family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need
+to be able to make a living from programming.
+We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole society must 
do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this has translated
+itself into leisure for workers because much nonproductive activity is required
+to accompany productive activity. The main causes of this are bureaucracy and
+isometric struggles against competition. Free software will greatly reduce 
these
+drains in the area of software production. We must do this, in order for 
technical
+gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.
+
+Chapter 5: Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+
+37
+
+5 Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to
+copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of
+us.
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software
+programs “owners,” most of whom aim to withhold software’s potential 
benefit
+from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy
+and modify the software that we use.
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for massproduction 
copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it
+restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from
+readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could
+copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information
+has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very
+flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That’s the reason 
for
+the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software
+copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association
+(SPA):
+• Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your
+friend.
+• Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
+• Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told
+they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
+• Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA’s request) of people such
+as MIT’s David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused
+of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.1
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where
+every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where
+individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as
+samizdat. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control
+in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is 
the
+1
+
+The charges were subsequently dismissed.
+
+Copyright c 1994, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published in Technos: Quarterly for Education and
+Technology, vol. 3, n. 2, pp. 24–26, Summer 1994. This version is published 
in Free
+Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. 
(Boston:
+GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+38
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of
+information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control
+how we use information:
+Name Calling
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and “theft,” as well as expert 
terminology such as “intellectual property” and “damage,” to suggest a 
certain line
+of thinking to the public—a simplistic analogy between programs and physical
+objects.
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don’t 
directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply
+them anyway.
+Exaggeration
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic loss” when users copy 
programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it
+harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would
+otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies.
+Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each and every one would have
+bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to put it kindly.
+The Law
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties 
they
+can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that 
today’s law
+reflects an unquestionable view of morality—yet at the same time, we are 
urged
+to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can’t be blamed on anyone.
+This line of persuasion isn’t designed to stand up to critical thinking; 
it’s
+intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
+It’s elementary that laws don’t decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many states for a 
black
+person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there 
was
+wrong.
+Natural Rights
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and
+go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the 
program simply outweigh those of anyone else—or even those of the whole rest 
of
+the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software,
+but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more important
+than you—I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it 
bunk.
+
+Chapter 5: Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+
+39
+
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural
+rights claims for two reasons.
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook
+spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. 
His
+action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the
+spaghetti, so the question is, which one? The smallest distinction between us 
is
+enough to tip the ethical balance.
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and
+me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your
+friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn’t have the power to tell you 
not
+to do these things. No one should.
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for 
authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of
+authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was
+drawn up. That’s why the Constitution only permits a system of copyright and
+does not require one; that’s why it says that copyright must be temporary. It
+also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not to 
reward
+authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but
+that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the
+natural rights of the public—and that this can only be justified for the 
public’s
+sake.
+Economics
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to
+production of more software.
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the
+subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the users of software. And it
+is empirically clear that people will produce more of something if they are 
well
+paid for doing so.
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that
+the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes
+that production of software is what we want, whether the software has owners
+or not.
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences
+with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be
+able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or for a price. If so, the 
amount
+you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich
+has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only
+eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly
+affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it has an owner
+does not directly affect what it is, or what you can do with it if you acquire 
it.
+
+40
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what
+you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of
+money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce
+something—but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical
+pollution that affects us all.
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its
+citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve,
+not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box 
that
+we can’t study or change.
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose
+freedom to control part of their own lives.
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation
+in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a
+natural way is “piracy,” they pollute our society’s civic spirit.
+This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price.
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is
+real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for
+admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we
+need to raise funds.
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods of finding
+funds, with some success. There’s no need to make anyone rich; a typical 
income
+is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are less satisfying than 
programming.
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom
+enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added
+to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the
+general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they
+wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest
+priority.
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services. In
+1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that about 15 
percent of its staff activity was free software development—a respectable 
percentage
+for a software company.
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Analog Devices
+Texas Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued 
development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done by paid
+developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded in the 90s by
+the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company formed specifically
+for the purpose.
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of 
listenersupported radio in the US shows it’s possible to support a large 
activity without
+forcing each user to pay.
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary program.
+If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is
+more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not
+
+Chapter 5: Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+
+41
+
+make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly
+with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software.
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people
+who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and
+to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite
+programmer to fix it when it breaks.
+You deserve free software.
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+43
+
+6 Why Software Should Be Free
+Introduction
+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”?
+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.
+I would like to consider the same question using a different criterion: the
+prosperity and freedom of the public in general.
+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.
+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 “free” software.1
+How Owners Justify Their Power
+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.
+The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my heart, my soul
+into this program. It comes from me, it’s mine!”
+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.
+1
+
+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.
+
+Copyright c 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
+This version of this essay is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected 
Essays
+of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+44
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+The Argument against Having Owners
+The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked with 
having
+owners to restrict the use of it?”
+In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of each of 
those
+two activities independently: 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.
+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.
+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.
+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
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+45
+
+comparing these magnitudes, and shows that the benefit is much greater.
+To elucidate this argument, let’s apply it in another area: road 
construction.
+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.
+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.2 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.
+When the advocates of toll booths propose them as merely 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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
+Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any necessary
+2
+
+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.
+
+46
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+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.3
+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?
+Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:
+• Fewer people use the program.
+• None of the users can adapt or fix the program.
+• Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it.
+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.
+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.
+However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is no
+limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.
+Obstructing Use of Programs
+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.
+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.
+3
+
+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 completely unavailable, as one would wish in the case 
of a
+program whose use is considered destructive.
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+47
+
+But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to develop the program.
+As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in delivered user 
satisfaction per
+hour of work, is reduced.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+Damaging Social Cohesion
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+
+48
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+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.
+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.
+Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs
+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.
+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.
+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:
+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);
+}
+
+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:
+1314258944
+1411907592
+-234880989
+1644167167
+572518958
+
+-232267772
+-231844736
+-234879837
+-3214848
+-803143692
+
+-231844864
+2159150
+-234879966
+1090581031
+1314803317
+
+1634862
+1420296208
+-232295424
+1962942495
+
+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
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+49
+
+that the computer will execute. This means that only the program’s owner can
+change the program.
+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.
+The MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a
+gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we added many
+convenient features. For example, the software would notify a user immediately
+on completion of a print job. Whenever the printer had trouble, such as a paper
+jam or running out of paper, the software would immediately notify all users
+who had print jobs queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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!”
+“But my doctor says I’m not supposed to eat salt! What can I do? Will you
+take out the salt for me?”
+“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
+
+50
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+for the Navy Department. I might get around to you in about two years.”
+Obstructing Software Development
+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 20 years. Meanwhile, parts of the program would be 
“cannibalized”
+to form the beginnings of other programs.
+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.
+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.
+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 in your own
+company.
+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.
+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.
+It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted
+I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying, changing,
+and building on a program. I have not specified how this obstruction is carried
+out, because that doesn’t affect the conclusion. Whether it is done by copy
+protection, or copyright, or licenses, or encryption, or ROM cards, or hardware
+serial numbers, if it succeeds in preventing use, it does harm.
+Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others. I
+suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their objective.
+Software Should Be Free
+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.
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+51
+
+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.
+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.
+Why People Will Develop Software
+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.
+Programming Is Fun
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+
+52
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+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.
+Funding Free Software
+Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses. Many
+other institutions already exist that can do this.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling services
+related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C compiler to new
+hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU Emacs. (I offer these
+improvements to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which
+I am paid.
+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.
+Institutions such as the Free Software Foundation 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.
+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
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+53
+
+the same free software to the public for the same fee, it would now provide a
+very good living for its founder.
+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.)
+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.
+What Do Users Owe to Developers?
+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.
+However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers, since 
obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.
+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.
+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.
+What Is Software Productivity?
+If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps fewer of
+them. Would this be bad for society?
+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:
+• Wider use of each program that is developed.
+• The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead of 
starting
+from scratch.
+• Better education of programmers.
+• The elimination of duplicate development effort.
+Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the employment
+of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased productivity. Yet 
these
+
+54
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+people usually accept the widely held belief that the software industry needs
+increased productivity. How is this?
+“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.
+Is Competition Inevitable?
+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 
combat.
+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, as long as the spirit of good sportsmanship is maintained.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+“Why Don’t You Move to Russia?”
+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
+
+Chapter 6: Why Software Should Be Free
+
+55
+
+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?
+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.
+The American system of software copyright exercises central control over 
distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with automatic 
copyingprotection schemes to prevent illegal copying.
+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.
+Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism,
+it is the software owners who are the Communists.
+The Question of Premises
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+It is important for these people to know that this premise is not part of our
+legal tradition. It never has been.
+Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to “promote the
+Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” The Supreme Court has elaborated on
+this, stating in Fox Film v. Doyal 4 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.”
+4
+
+Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 US 123, 1932.
+
+56
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+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.
+Conclusion
+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.
+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.
+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.
+
+Chapter 7: Why Schools Should Exclusively Use Free Software
+
+57
+
+7 Why Schools Should Exclusively Use
+Free Software
+There are general reasons why all computer users should insist on free 
software:
+it gives users the freedom to control their own computers—with proprietary
+software, the computer does what the software owner wants it to do, not what
+the user wants it to do. Free software also gives users the freedom to 
cooperate
+with each other, to lead an upright life. These reasons apply to schools as 
they
+do to everyone.
+The purpose of this article is to state additional reasons that apply 
specifically
+to education.
+First, free software can save schools money. Free software gives schools, like
+other users, the freedom to copy and redistribute the software, so the school
+system can make copies for all the computers they have. In poor countries, this
+can help close the digital divide.
+This obvious reason, while important in practical terms, is rather shallow.
+And proprietary software developers can eliminate this reason by donating 
copies
+to the schools. (Warning: a school that accepts such an offer may have to pay
+for upgrades later.) So let’s look at the deeper reasons.
+Schools have a social mission: to teach students to be citizens of a strong,
+capable, independent, cooperating and free society. They should promote the
+use of free software just as they promote recycling. If schools teach students 
free
+software, then the students will tend to use free software after they graduate.
+This will help society as a whole escape from being dominated (and gouged) by
+megacorporations.
+What schools should refuse to do is teach dependence. Those corporations
+offer free samples to schools for the same reason tobacco companies distribute
+free cigarettes to minors: to get children addicted.1 They will not give 
discounts
+to these students once they’ve grown up and graduated.
+Free software permits students to learn how software works. Some students,
+on reaching their teens, want to learn everything there is to know about their
+computer and its software. They are intensely curious to read the source code 
of
+the programs that they use every day. To learn to write good code, students 
need
+to read lots of code and write lots of code. They need to read and understand
+real programs that people really use. Only free software permits this.
+1
+
+RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company was fined $15m in 2002 for handing out free 
samples of cigarettes at events attended by children. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/
+worldservice/sci_tech/features/health/tobaccotrial/usa.htm.
+
+Copyright c 2003, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2003. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+58
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Proprietary software rejects their thirst for knowledge: it says, “The 
knowledge you want is a secret—learning is forbidden!” Free software 
encourages
+everyone to learn. The free software community rejects the “priesthood of 
technology,” which keeps the general public in ignorance of how technology 
works;
+we encourage students of any age and situation to read the source code and 
learn
+as much as they want to know. Schools that use free software will enable gifted
+programming students to advance.
+The deepest reason for using free software in schools is for moral education.
+We expect schools to teach students basic facts and useful skills, but that is 
not
+their whole job. The most fundamental job of schools is to teach good 
citizenship,
+which includes the habit of helping others. In the area of computing, this 
means
+teaching people to share software. Schools, starting from nursery school, 
should
+tell their pupils, “If you bring software to school, you must share it with 
the other
+students. And you must show the source code to the class, in case someone wants
+to learn.”
+Of course, the school must practice what it preaches: all the software 
installed by the school should be available for students to copy, take home, and
+redistribute further.
+Teaching the students to use free software, and to participate in the free
+software community, is a hands-on civics lesson. It also teaches students the
+role model of public service rather than that of tycoons. All levels of school
+should use free software.
+
+Chapter 8: Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University
+
+59
+
+8 Releasing Free Software If You Work at
+a University
+In the free software movement, we believe computer users should have the 
freedom to change and redistribute the software that they use. The “free” 
in “free
+software” refers to freedom: it means users have the freedom to run, modify 
and
+redistribute the software. Free software contributes to human knowledge, while
+nonfree software does not. Universities should therefore encourage free 
software for the sake of advancing human knowledge, just as they should 
encourage
+scientists and other scholars to publish their work.
+Alas, many university administrators have a grasping attitude towards software 
(and towards science); they see programs as opportunities for income, not
+as opportunities to contribute to human knowledge. Free software developers
+have been coping with this tendency for almost 20 years.
+When I started developing the GNU operating system, in 1984, my first step
+was to quit my job at MIT. I did this specifically so that the MIT licensing
+office would be unable to interfere with releasing GNU as free software. I had
+planned an approach for licensing the programs in GNU that would ensure that
+all modified versions must be free software as well—an approach that 
developed
+into the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)—and I did not want to have
+to beg the MIT administration to let me use it.
+Over the years, university affiliates have often come to the Free Software
+Foundation for advice on how to cope with administrators who see software
+only as something to sell. One good method, applicable even for specifically
+funded projects, is to base your work on an existing program that was released
+under the GNU GPL. Then you can tell the administrators, “We’re not allowed
+to release the modified version except under the GNU GPL—any other way
+would be copyright infringement.” After the dollar signs fade from their 
eyes,
+they will usually consent to releasing it as free software.
+You can also ask your funding sponsor for help. When a group at NYU
+developed the GNU Ada Compiler, with funding from the US Air Force, the
+contract explicitly called for donating the resulting code to the Free Software
+Foundation. Work out the arrangement with the sponsor first, then politely
+show the university administration that it is not open to renegotiation. They
+would rather have a contract to develop free software than no contract at all, 
so
+they will most likely go along.
+Whatever you do, raise the issue early—well before the program is half 
finished. At this point, the university still needs you, so you can play 
hardball:
+Copyright c 2002 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2002. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+60
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+tell the administration you will finish the program, make it usable, if they 
agree
+in writing to make it free software (and agree to your choice of free software
+license). Otherwise you will work on it only enough to write a paper about it,
+and never make a version good enough to release. When the administrators
+know their choice is to have a free software package that brings credit to the
+university or nothing at all, they will usually choose the former.
+Not all universities have grasping policies. The University of Texas has a
+policy that makes it easy to release software developed there as free software 
under the GNU General Public License. Univates, in Brazil, and the International
+Institute of Information Technology in Hyderabad, India, both have policies in
+favor of releasing software under the GPL. By developing faculty support first,
+you may be able to institute such a policy at your university. Present the 
issue as one of principle: does the university have a mission to advance human
+knowledge, or is its sole purpose to perpetuate itself?
+Whatever approach you use, it helps to approach the issue with determination 
and based on an ethical perspective, as we do in the free software movement.
+To treat the public ethically, the software should be free—as in 
freedom—for the
+whole public.
+Many developers of free software profess narrowly practical reasons for doing
+so: they advocate allowing others to share and change software as an expedient 
for making software powerful and reliable. If those values motivate you
+to develop free software, well and good, and thank you for your contribution.
+But those values do not give you a good footing to stand firm when university
+administrators pressure or tempt you to make the program nonfree.
+For instance, they may argue that “We could make it even more powerful
+and reliable with all the money we can get.” This claim may or may not come
+true in the end, but it is hard to disprove in advance. They may suggest a
+license to offer copies “free of charge, for academic use only,” which 
would tell
+the general public they don’t deserve freedom, and argue that this will 
obtain
+the cooperation of academia, which is all (they say) you need.
+If you start from values of convenience alone, it is hard to make a good
+case for rejecting these dead-end proposals, but you can do it easily if you 
base
+your stand on ethical and political values. What good is it to make a program
+powerful and reliable at the expense of users’ freedom? Shouldn’t freedom 
apply
+outside academia as well as within it? The answers are obvious if freedom and
+community are among your goals. Free software respects the users’ freedom,
+while nonfree software negates it.
+Nothing strengthens your resolve like knowing that the community’s freedom
+depends, in one instance, on you.
+
+Chapter 9: Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
+
+61
+
+9 Why Free Software Needs
+Free Documentation
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we can
+ill afford to lose manuals this way.
+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 sells 
printed
+copies of free GNU manuals, 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.
+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
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007,
+2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 1996. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+62
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+every copy of the program, on line or on paper. Permission for modification is
+crucial too.
+As a general rule, I don’t believe that it is essential for people to have 
permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. 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.
+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.
+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.)
+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.
+However, it must be possible to modify all the technical 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.
+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.
+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.
+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.
+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
+
+Chapter 9: Why Free Software Needs Free Documentation
+
+63
+
+documentation will realize, before it is too late, that he must above all make 
it
+free.
+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.
+Note: We maintain a page that lists free books available from other publishers.
+
+Chapter 10: Selling Free Software
+
+65
+
+10 Selling Free Software
+Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not
+charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as
+little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
+Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as
+much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
+The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to
+freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software,” we’re talking 
about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”) 
Specifically, it means
+that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute 
the
+program with or without changes.
+Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a 
substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from 
different
+places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom
+in using it.
+Nonfree programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store
+will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn’t make it free software, 
though.
+Price or no price, the program is nonfree because users don’t have freedom.
+Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn’t make the
+software free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of 
free
+software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money.
+Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, 
you
+might as well make a profit from it.
+Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought
+to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a distributor, 
the
+way to do this is to give a part of the profit to free software development 
projects
+or to the Free Software Foundation. This way you can advance the world of free
+software.
+Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development.
+Don’t waste it!
+In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you charge too
+low a fee, you won’t have anything to spare to support development.
+Some views on the ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such
+as the GNU GPL, are also available, at http://gnu.org/philosophy/
+selling-exceptions.html.
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 1996. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+66
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Will a Higher Distribution Price Hurt Some Users?
+People sometimes worry that a high distribution fee will put free software out
+of range for users who don’t have a lot of money. With proprietary software, 
a
+high price does exactly that—but free software is different.
+The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, and
+there are many ways to get it.
+Software hoarders try their damnedest to stop you from running a proprietary
+program without paying the standard price. If this price is high, that does 
make
+it hard for some users to use the program.
+With free software, users don’t have to pay the distribution fee in order to 
use
+the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with
+the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join 
together,
+split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A
+high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
+Will a Higher Distribution Price Discourage Use of Free Software?
+Another common concern is for the popularity of free software. People think
+that a high price for distribution would reduce the number of users, or that a
+low price is likely to encourage users.
+This is true for proprietary software—but free software is different. With
+so many ways to get copies, the price of distribution service has less effect 
on
+popularity.
+In the long run, how many people use free software is determined mainly by
+how much free software can do, and how easy it is to use. Many users do not
+make freedom their priority; they may continue to use proprietary software if 
free
+software can’t do all the jobs they want done. Thus, if we want to increase 
the
+number of users in the long run, we should above all develop more free 
software.
+The most direct way to do this is by writing needed free software or manuals
+yourself. But if you do distribution rather than writing, the best way you can
+help is by raising funds for others to write them.
+The Term “Selling Software” Can Be Confusing Too
+Strictly speaking, “selling” means trading goods for money. Selling a copy 
of a
+free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.
+However, when people think of “selling software,” they usually imagine 
doing
+it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than
+free.
+So unless you’re going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article 
does,
+we suggest it is better to avoid using the term “selling software” and 
choose some
+other wording instead. For example, you could say “distributing free software
+for a fee”—that is unambiguous.
+
+Chapter 10: Selling Free Software
+
+67
+
+High or Low Fees, and the GNU GPL
+Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)
+has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of
+free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars.
+It’s up to you, and the marketplace, so don’t complain to us if nobody 
wants to
+pay a billion dollars for a copy.
+The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed without the
+corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are required by the
+GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. Without a limit on
+the fee for the source code, they would be able set a fee too large for anyone 
to
+pay—such as a billion dollars—and thus pretend to release source code 
while in
+truth concealing it. So in this case we have to limit the fee for source in 
order
+to ensure the user’s freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there is no 
such
+justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.
+Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU GPL
+plead for permission, saying that they “won’t charge money for the GNU 
software” or such like. That won’t get them anywhere with us. Free software 
is
+about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is defending freedom. When we defend
+users’ freedom, we are not distracted by side issues such as how much of a 
distribution fee is charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the 
only issue.
+
+Chapter 11: The Free Software Song
+
+69
+
+11 The Free Software Song
+The lyrics of “The Free Software Song” are sung to the melody of the 
Bulgarian folk song “Sadi moma bela loza.” To listen to a recording of the 
piece
+accompanied by Bulgarian instruments played in traditional style, please visit
+http://gnu.org/music/FreeSWSong.ogg.
+
+87
+Join us now and share the
+Hoar ders can get piles of
+When we have e
+nough free
+Join us now and share the
+
+soft ware; you'll
+mo ney; that
+soft ware
+at
+soft ware; you'll
+
+be
+is
+our
+be
+
+free,
+true,
+call,
+free,
+
+ha
+ha
+ha
+ha
+
+ckers,
+ckers,
+ckers,
+ckers,
+
+5
+
+you'll
+that
+at
+you'll
+
+be
+is
+our
+be
+
+Join us now and
+But they can not
+we'll kick out those
+Join us now and
+
+free.
+true.
+call,
+free.
+
+share the soft ware;
+help their neigh- bors;
+ty li cen ses
+dir
+share the soft ware;
+
+9
+
+you'll
+that's
+e
+you'll
+
+be
+not
+ver
+be
+
+free,
+good,
+more,
+free,
+
+ha
+ha
+ha
+ha
+
+ckers,
+ckers,
+ckers,
+ckers,
+
+you'll
+that's
+e
+you'll
+
+be
+not
+ver
+be
+
+free.
+good.
+more.
+free.
+
+This song is in a rhythm of 7/8; those unaccustomed to odd rhythms often take 
the
+unevenness to be a mistake. The meter can be analyzed into three subgroups as
+slow-quick-quick or 3-2-2. Such meters in Bulgarian music can often be 
stretched,
+and some musicians analyze this song as 3-2-3 instead; however, the last 
“3” is not
+as long as the first. Yves Moreau, who collected and taught the dance, 
endorses the
+rhythm of 7.
+Copyright c 2010 Richard Stallman
+Richard Stallman wrote the lyrics above in 1991. This version of the score is
+published in Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. 
Stallman,
+2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+Part II:
+What’s in a Name?
+
+Chapter 12: What’s in a Name?
+
+73
+
+12 What’s in a Name?
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of what
+we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A rose by any
+other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen, people will be 
rather
+disappointed when they try to write with it. And if you call pens “roses,” 
people
+may not realize what they are good for. If you call our operating system Linux,
+that conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s origin, history, and purpose. 
If you
+call it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea.
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people who 
forget
+history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World that has developed
+around GNU/Linux is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that led us to
+develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten to come back.
+When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system GNU/Linux
+rather than Linux, people sometimes respond this way:
+Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is it really
+worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the important thing that
+the job was done, not who did it? You ought to relax, take pride in the job
+well done, and not worry about the credit.
+
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if the job 
were
+done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! But challenges abound,
+and this is no time to take the future for granted. Our community’s strength
+rests on commitment to freedom and cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux
+is a way for people to remind themselves and inform others of these goals.
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; much good
+work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term “Linux” has been
+associated ever since it was first coined with a philosophy that does not make
+a commitment to the freedom to cooperate. As the name is increasingly used
+by business, we will have even more trouble making it connect with community
+spirit.
+To learn more about this issue, you can read our GNU/Linux FAQ, at http://gnu.
+org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html, our page on Linux and the GNU Project, at
+http://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html, which gives a history of the GNU/Linux
+system as it relates to this issue of naming, and the article “GNU Users Who 
Have
+Never Heard of GNU,” at http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.
+html.
+Copyright c 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2000. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+74
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the tendency
+of the “Linux” distribution companies to add nonfree software to GNU/Linux
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial distribution
+developers do this; none limits itself to free software. Most of them do not 
clearly
+identify the nonfree packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree
+software and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise “Linux” 
systems
+that are “licensed per seat,” which give the user as much freedom as 
Microsoft
+Windows.
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the “popularity
+of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above freedom. Sometimes this is 
openly
+admitted. For instance, Wired magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of
+Linux Magazine, “feels that the move toward open source software should be 
fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions.”1 And Caldera’s CEO 
openly
+urged users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity 
of
+Linux.”
+Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the popularity, 
if by popularity we mean the number of people using some of GNU/Linux
+in combination with nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly 
encourages the community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget
+the goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can’t stay on the 
road.
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming tool, it can become a
+trap for free software developers. When they write free software that depends 
on
+the nonfree package, their software cannot be part of a completely free system.
+Motif and Qt trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat of a
+problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later, Sun’s nonfree
+Java implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap, fortunately now mostly
+corrected.
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the future
+of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of free and nonfree components. Five years from
+now, we will surely still have plenty of free software; but if we are not 
careful,
+it will hardly be usable without the nonfree software that users expect to find
+with it. If this happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming, solving
+future problems might become easier as our community’s development resources
+increase. But we face obstacles that threaten to make this harder: laws that
+prohibit free software. As software patents mount up, and as laws like the 
Digital
+Millennium Copyright Act are used to prohibit the development of free software
+for important jobs such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream,
+we will find ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to reject the nonfree programs that use them.
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort. But
+what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to remember the
+1
+
+Michelle Finley, “French Pols Say, ‘Open It Up,’ ” 24 April 2000, 
http://wired.
+com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35862.
+
+Chapter 12: What’s in a Name?
+
+75
+
+goal of freedom to cooperate. We can’t expect a mere desire for powerful, 
reliable software to motivate people to make great efforts. We need the kind
+of determination that people have when they fight for their freedom and their
+community—determination to keep on for years and not give up.
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We’re the ones who talk about freedom and community as
+something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of “Linux” 
normally
+don’t say this. The magazines about “Linux” are typically full of ads 
for nonfree software; the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree 
software to the
+system; other companies “support Linux” by developing nonfree applications 
to
+run on GNU/Linux; the user groups for “Linux” typically invite salesmen to
+present those applications. The main place people in our community are likely
+to come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU Project.
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project
+can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won’t 
automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a reason to 
think
+seriously about it. In contrast, people who consider themselves “Linux 
users,”
+and believe that the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful
+in Linux,” typically perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and
+themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across
+it.
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces
+a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to dismiss idealism
+as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely practical: it is the 
reason we
+have a free GNU/Linux operating system. People who love this system ought
+to know that it is our idealism made real.
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at stake except 
credit,
+perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not in that 
position.
+To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be 
recognized
+for what we have already done. Please help us, by calling the operating system
+GNU/Linux.
+
+Chapter 13: Categories of Free and Nonfree Software
+
+77
+
+13 Categories of Free and Nonfree Software
+free software
+
+public domain software
+        (with source)
+public
+
+proprietary software
+
+      software under
+lax permissive license
+
+software under lax permissive license
+
+public domain software
+      (without source)
+copylefted software
+
+software under GPL
+GP
+
+open source software
+Â 
+
+shareware
+
+open source software
+
+free-download software
+
+This diagram, originally by Chao-Kuei and updated by several others since,
+explains the different categories of software. It’s available at http://gnu.
+org/philosophy/categories.html as a Scalable Vector Graphic and as an
+XFig document, under the terms of any of the GNU GPL v2 or later,
+the GNU FDL v1.2 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution-Share
+Alike v2.0 or later. To view a copy of the Creative Commons license,
+visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, or send a letter
+to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 
94105, USA.
+
+Free Software
+Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use, copy,
+and/or distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis or for
+a fee. In particular, this means that source code must be available. “If 
it’s
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
+This list was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 1996. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+78
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+not source, it’s not software.” This is a simplified description; see also 
the full
+definition (p. 3).
+If a program is free, then it can potentially be included in a free operating
+system such as GNU, or free versions of the GNU/Linux system.
+There are many different ways to make a program free—many questions of
+detail, which could be decided in more than one way and still make the program
+free. Some of the possible variations are described below. For information on
+specific free software licenses, see the license list page, at http://gnu.org/
+licenses/license-list.html.
+Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. But proprietary software
+companies typically use the term “free software” to refer to price. 
Sometimes
+they mean that you can obtain a binary copy at no charge; sometimes they
+mean that a copy is bundled with a computer that you are buying, and the
+price includes both. Either way, it has nothing to do with what we mean by free
+software in the GNU Project.
+Because of this potential confusion, when a software company says its product
+is free software, always check the actual distribution terms to see whether 
users
+really have all the freedoms that free software implies. Sometimes it really is
+free software; sometimes it isn’t.
+Many languages have two separate words for “free” as in freedom and 
“free”
+as in zero price. For example, French has “libre” and “gratuit.” Not 
so English;
+there is a word “gratis” that refers unambiguously to price, but no common
+adjective that refers unambiguously to freedom. So if you are speaking another
+language, we suggest you translate “free” into your language to make it 
clearer.
+See our list of translations of the term “free software” into various 
other languages (p. 253).
+Free software is often more reliable than nonfree software.
+Open Source Software
+The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less
+the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of 
software:
+they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free
+software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension
+of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly 
all
+open source software is free.
+We prefer the term “free software” because it refers to freedom—something
+that the term “open source” does not do.
+Public Domain Software
+Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If the source code 
is
+in the public domain, that is a special case of noncopylefted free software, 
which
+means that some copies or modified versions may not be free at all.
+In some cases, an executable program can be in the public domain but the
+source code is not available. This is not free software, because free software
+requires accessibility of source code. Meanwhile, most free software is not in 
the
+
+Chapter 13: Categories of Free and Nonfree Software
+
+79
+
+public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally given
+permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license.
+Sometimes people use the term “public domain” in a loose fashion to mean
+“free” or “available gratis.” However, “public domain” is a legal 
term and means,
+precisely, “not copyrighted.” For clarity, we recommend using “public 
domain”
+for that meaning only, and using other terms to convey the other meanings.
+Under the Berne Convention, which most countries have signed, anything
+written down is automatically copyrighted. This includes programs. Therefore,
+if you want a program you have written to be in the public domain, you must
+take some legal steps to disclaim the copyright on it; otherwise, the program 
is
+copyrighted.
+Copylefted Software
+Copylefted software is free software whose distribution terms ensure that all
+copies of all versions carry more or less the same distribution terms. This 
means,
+for instance, that copyleft licenses generally disallow others to add 
additional
+requirements to the software (though a limited set of safe added requirements
+can be allowed) and require making source code available. This shields the
+program, and its modified versions, from some of the common ways of making
+a program proprietary.
+Some copyleft licenses, such as GPL version 3, block other means of turning
+software proprietary, such as tivoization.
+In the GNU Project, we copyleft almost all the software we write, because
+our goal is to give every user the freedoms implied by the term “free 
software.”
+See the essay “Copyleft” (p. 127) for more explanation of how copyleft 
works
+and why we use it.
+Copyleft is a general concept; to copyleft an actual program, you need to
+use a specific set of distribution terms. There are many possible ways to write
+copyleft distribution terms, so in principle there can be many copyleft free 
software licenses. However, in actual practice nearly all copylefted software 
uses
+the GNU General Public License. Two different copyleft licenses are usually
+“incompatible,” which means it is illegal to merge the code using one 
license
+with the code using the other license; therefore, it is good for the community 
if
+people use a single copyleft license.
+Noncopylefted Free Software
+Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with permission to 
redistribute and modify, and also to add additional restrictions to it.
+If a program is free but not copylefted, then some copies or modified versions
+may not be free at all. A software company can compile the program, with
+or without modifications, and distribute the executable file as a proprietary
+software product.
+The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with
+distribution terms that make it noncopylefted free software. If you wish, you 
can
+get a copy which has those distribution terms and is free. However, there are
+
+80
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+nonfree versions as well, and there are (or at least were) popular workstations
+and PC graphics boards for which nonfree versions are the only ones that work.
+If you are using this hardware, X11 is not free software for you. The 
developers
+of X11 even made X11 nonfree for a while; they were able to do this because
+others had contributed their code under the same noncopyleft license.
+Lax Permissive Licensed Software
+Lax permissive licenses include the X11 license and the two BSD licenses. These
+licenses permit almost any use of the code, including distributing proprietary
+binaries with or without changing the source code.
+GPL-Covered Software
+The GNU GPL (General Public License) is one specific set of distribution terms
+for copylefting a program. The GNU Project uses it as the distribution terms
+for most GNU software.
+To equate free software with GPL-covered software is therefore an error.
+The GNU Operating System
+The GNU operating system is the Unix-like operating system, which is entirely
+free software, that we in the GNU Project have developed since 1984.
+A Unix-like operating system consists of many programs. The GNU system
+includes all the GNU software, as well as many other packages, such as the X
+Window System and TEX, which are not GNU software.
+The first test release of the complete GNU system was in 1996. This includes
+the GNU Hurd, our kernel, developed since 1990. In 2001 the GNU system
+(including the GNU Hurd) began working fairly reliably, but the Hurd still 
lacks
+some important features, so it is not widely used. Meanwhile, the GNU/Linux
+system, an offshoot of the GNU operating system which uses Linux as the kernel
+instead of the GNU Hurd, has been a great success since the 90s.
+Since the purpose of GNU is to be free, every single component in the GNU
+operating system has to be free software. They don’t all have to be 
copylefted,
+however; any kind of free software is legally suitable to include if it helps 
meet
+technical goals. And it isn’t necessary for all the components to be GNU 
software, individually. GNU can and does include noncopylefted free software 
such
+as the X Window System that were developed by other projects.
+GNU Programs
+“GNU programs” is equivalent to GNU software. A program Foo is a GNU
+program if it is GNU software. We also sometimes say it is a “GNU package.”
+GNU Software
+GNU software is software that is released under the auspices of the GNU 
Project.
+If a program is GNU software, we also say that it is a GNU program or a GNU
+package. The README or manual of a GNU package should say it is one; also,
+
+Chapter 13: Categories of Free and Nonfree Software
+
+81
+
+the Free Software Directory identifies all GNU packages.
+Most GNU software is copylefted, but not all; however, all GNU software
+must be free software.
+Some GNU software was written by staff of the Free Software Foundation,
+but most GNU software comes from many volunteers. (Some of these volunteers
+are paid by companies or universities, but they are volunteers for us.) Some
+contributed software is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation; some is
+copyrighted by the contributors who wrote it.
+Nonfree Software
+Nonfree software is any software that is not free. Its use, redistribution or
+modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is 
restricted
+so much that you effectively can’t do it freely.
+Proprietary Software
+Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past we 
subdivided nonfree software into “semifree software,” which could be 
modified and
+redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary software,” which could not 
be.
+But we have dropped that distinction and now use “proprietary software” as
+synonymous with nonfree software.
+The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any
+proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific 
purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we
+feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program.
+For example, we felt justified in installing Unix on our computer in the 1980s,
+because we were using it to write a free replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since
+free operating systems are available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we do
+not use any nonfree operating systems, and any new computer we install must
+run a completely free operating system.
+We don’t insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have to live by
+this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will follow it 
too,
+for your freedom’s sake.
+Freeware
+The term “freeware” has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly 
used
+for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source
+code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please 
don’t use
+“freeware” to refer to free software.
+Shareware
+Shareware is software which comes with permission for people to redistribute
+copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is required to pay a
+license fee.
+Shareware is not free software, or even semifree. There are two reasons it is
+not:
+
+82
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+• For most shareware, source code is not available; thus, you cannot modify
+the program at all.
+• Shareware does not come with permission to make a copy and install it
+without paying a license fee, not even for individuals engaging in nonprofit
+activity. (In practice, people often disregard the distribution terms and do
+this anyway, but the terms don’t permit it.)
+Private Software
+Private or custom software is software developed for one user (typically an 
organization or company). That user keeps it and uses it, and does not release 
it
+to the public either as source code or as binaries.
+A private program is free software in a trivial sense if its sole user has full
+rights to it.
+In general we do not believe it is wrong to develop a program and not release
+it. There are occasions when a program is so useful that withholding it from
+release is treating humanity badly. However, most programs are not that 
important, so not releasing them is not particularly harmful. Thus, there is no 
conflict
+between the development of private or custom software and the principles of the
+free software movement.
+Nearly all employment for programmers is in development of custom software;
+therefore most programming jobs are, or could be, done in a way compatible with
+the free software movement.
+Commercial Software
+Commercial software is software being developed by a business which aims to
+make money from the use of the software. “Commercial” and “proprietary”
+are not the same thing! Most commercial software is proprietary, but there is
+commercial free software, and there is noncommercial nonfree software.
+For example, GNU Ada is developed by a company. It is always distributed
+under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is free software; but its
+developers sell support contracts. When their salesmen speak to prospective
+customers, sometimes the customers say, “We would feel safer with a 
commercial
+compiler.” The salesmen reply, “GNU Ada is a commercial compiler; it 
happens
+to be free software.”
+For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order: the important
+thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether it is commercial is just a 
detail.
+However, the additional development of GNU Ada that results from its being
+commercial is definitely beneficial.
+Please help spread the awareness that free commercial software is possible.
+You can do this by making an effort not to say “commercial” when you mean
+“proprietary.”
+
+Chapter 14: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
+
+83
+
+14 Why Open Source Misses the Point of
+Free Software
+When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’ 
essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to 
redistribute copies
+with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of 
“free
+speech,” not “free beer.”
+These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the
+individual users’ sake, but for society as a whole because they promote 
social
+solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important
+as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of 
digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential 
for
+freedom in general.
+Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public
+schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the 
free
+GNU/Linux operating system. Most of these users, however, have never heard
+of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
+software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
+often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a different 
philosophy in
+which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.
+The free software movement has campaigned for computer users’ freedom
+since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system
+GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom
+to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential components
+of the system and designed the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to
+release them under—a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all
+users of a program.
+Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals
+of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software community
+splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term
+was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term 
“free
+software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite 
different
+from those of the free software movement.
+Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
+campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by 
highlighting the software’s practical benefits, while not raising issues of 
right and
+wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the
+free software movement’s ethical and social values. Whichever their views, 
when
+Copyright c 2007, 2008, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2007. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+84
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The
+term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based
+only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software.
+Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make
+the same association.
+Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe
+almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on 
fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free
+software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software
+is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users’ 
freedom.
+By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to
+make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree 
software
+is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. For the free software
+movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to
+stop using it and move to free software.
+“Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software, does it 
matter
+which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While
+a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today,
+establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to
+value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free
+software.”
+We in the free software movement don’t think of the open source camp as
+an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to
+know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source
+supporters.
+Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source”
+The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended 
meaning,
+“software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the 
intended
+meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this
+problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying, “Think 
of
+‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’ ” This is not a perfect solution; it 
cannot completely
+eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it
+didn’t present other problems.
+Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
+We’ve looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly 
“right”
+that switching to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts
+the French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India do not
+recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for “free software” has 
some
+kind of semantic problem—and this includes “open source software.”
+The official definition of “open source software”1 (which is published by 
the
+Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly
+from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser 
in
+1
+
+See http://opensource.org/docs/osd for the full definition.
+
+Chapter 14: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
+
+85
+
+some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few licenses that we
+consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of 
the
+source code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let you
+run your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition agrees
+with our definition in most cases.
+However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—
+and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the 
source
+code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many 
programs
+that are neither free nor open source.
+Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its
+advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. 
According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software, 
meaning
+simply, anyone can get copies of its source code files.”2 I don’t think he 
deliberately sought to reject or dispute the “official” definition. I think 
he simply
+applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning
+for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use 
of
+open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely
+and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to 
what
+one is allowed to do with that code.”
+The New York Times has run an article that stretches the meaning of the
+term to refer to user beta testing3 —letting a few users try an early 
version and
+give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have 
practiced
+for decades.
+Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official
+definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is 
for
+us. The term “free software” has two natural meanings, one of which is the
+intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not
+free beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open source” has 
only one
+natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So
+there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That 
makes
+for worse confusion.
+Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not
+using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that
+“free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, 
since
+the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source
+licenses qualify as free software licenses.
+The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to 
other
+activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such
+2
+3
+
+Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning...Was the Command Line (New York:
+HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94.
+Mary Jane Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game Design,” New
+York Times, online ed., 7 February 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/external/
+gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-gamedesign-37415.html.
+
+86
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not
+pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow
+invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means
+“participatory.”
+Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions. . . but
+Not Always
+Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some 
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the 
two daughter
+groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and
+values. The right wing made much of this and used it to criticize the entire 
left.
+Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement 
with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups. They
+have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals
+and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical
+behavior—such as developing free software.
+As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source
+camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It
+is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate 
different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are 
situations
+where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
+The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the
+software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not guaranteed.
+Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes
+they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not
+respect the users’ freedom. Free software activists and open source 
enthusiasts
+will react very differently to that.
+A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals
+of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program
+work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get
+a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, 
leading
+to its loss.
+The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I
+value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will support a
+project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act 
to
+maintain and defend it.
+Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad
+The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from the
+supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. If it is 
powerful and
+reliable, that means it serves them better.
+But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom.
+What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness
+means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to
+remove. Malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users,
+
+Chapter 14: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
+
+87
+
+back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and
+some open source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.
+Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for individuals 
to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This
+malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see
+http://defectivebydesign.org) and is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom
+that free software aims to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of 
DRM
+is to trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or
+even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
+Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” software. 
Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs designed
+to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others to change it,
+they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users 
like
+you. The software would then be delivered to you in devices that do not allow
+you to change it.
+This software might be open source and use the open source development
+model, but it won’t be free software since it won’t respect the freedom of 
the
+users that actually run it. If the open source development model succeeds in
+making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will
+make it even worse.
+Fear of Freedom
+The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from 
the
+free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free software” made 
some
+people uneasy. That’s true: raising ethical issues such as freedom, talking 
about
+responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things
+they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can
+trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does
+not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.
+That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They
+figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about
+the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able 
to
+“sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business.
+This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open
+source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop,
+free software, which has extended our community—but only at the superficial,
+practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical 
values,
+impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many 
people
+into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far
+as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to 
free
+software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own
+freedom.
+Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
+software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer such
+temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline? Only if
+
+88
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value 
freedom
+in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of 
specific free
+software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A certain amount
+of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for the community, 
but
+it is dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem
+like an eccentricity.
+That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved
+with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 
freedom—usually
+because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux
+operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free 
system,
+and they invite users to consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.
+Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions
+find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom
+with its software. This is no coincidence. Most GNU/Linux users were 
introduced to the system through “open source” discussion, which doesn’t 
say that
+freedom is a goal. The practices that don’t uphold freedom and the words that
+don’t talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To 
overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
+Conclusion
+As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free
+software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom to 
their
+attention. We have to say, “It’s free software and it gives you 
freedom!”—more
+and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than 
“open
+source,” you help our campaign.
+Notes
+• Joe Barr’s article “Live and Let License” (ITworld.com, 22 May 2001,
+http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4) gives his perspective on
+this issue.
+• Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free
+software developers (“Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation 
and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in Perspectives
+on Free and Open Source Software, edited by J. Feller and others (Cambridge: 
MIT Press, 2005)) says that a considerable fraction are motivated
+by the view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they
+surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the
+view that this is an ethical issue.
+
+Chapter 15: Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage
+
+89
+
+15 Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a
+Seductive Mirage
+It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three 
separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of 
laws—
+plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” 
The
+distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies
+that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion
+is to reject the term entirely.
+According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the
+widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is a fashion that 
followed
+the 1967 founding of the World “Intellectual Property” Organization (WIPO),
+and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN
+organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of 
copyrights,
+patents, and trademarks.)
+The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about
+copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical
+objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law,
+of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These
+laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term 
leads
+legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by
+the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias
+introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.
+The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often asked me
+to propose some other name for the overall category—or have proposed their 
own
+alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly
+Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. 
Some speak of “exclusive rights regimes,” but referring to restrictions as
+“rights” is doublethink too.
+Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake
+to replace “intellectual property” with any other term. A different name 
will
+not address the term’s deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such
+unified thing as “intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only reason 
people
+think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term
+has misled them.
+The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together 
disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend
+to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
+Copyright c 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This article was written in 2004 and published in Policy Futures in Education,
+vol. 4, n. 4, pp. 334–336, 2006. This version is part of Free Software, Free 
Society:
+Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+90
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately,
+evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and 
raise different public policy issues.
+Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the
+details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the 
publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an 
idea a
+temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields
+and not in others.
+Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way
+of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. 
Legislators
+under the influence of the term “intellectual property,” however, have 
turned it
+into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.
+Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail,
+as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact
+about copyright law, you’d be wise to assume that patent law is different. 
You’ll
+rarely go wrong!
+People often say “intellectual property” when they really mean some larger 
or
+smaller category. For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor
+countries to squeeze money out of them. Some of these laws are “intellectual
+property” laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice 
often
+grab for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, they
+misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use an accurate 
term,
+such as “legislative colonization,” that gets to the heart of the matter.
+Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law professors
+who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the seductiveness of the term
+“intellectual property,” and make general statements that conflict with 
facts
+they know. For example, one professor wrote in 2006:
+Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers of
+the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to intellectual
+property. They knew rights might be necessary, but. . . they tied congress’s
+hands, restricting its power in multiple ways.
+
+That statement refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the US 
Constitution,
+which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That clause, though, has nothing
+to do with trademark law or various others. The term “intellectual 
property”
+led that professor to make false generalization.
+The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic thinking. It 
leads
+people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws
+have—that they create artificial privileges for certain parties—and to 
disregard
+the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law 
places
+on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the
+form encourages an “economistic” approach to all these issues.
+Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined 
assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of 
production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions
+
+Chapter 15: Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage
+
+91
+
+which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or
+that patents on drugs support life-saving research.
+Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term 
“intellectual
+property,” the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly 
invisible.
+These issues arise from the specifics of each law—precisely what the term 
“intellectual property” encourages people to ignore. For instance, one 
issue relating
+to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law has
+nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether poor 
countries
+should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save
+lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.
+Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their noneconomic
+aspects are very different; using the shallow economic overgeneralization as 
the
+basis for considering them means ignoring the differences. Putting the two laws
+in the “intellectual property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
+Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual property” and any 
generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish. If you 
think all
+those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your opinions from a 
selection
+of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
+If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights,
+or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget 
the idea
+of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step
+is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term 
“intellectual
+property” suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its 
fullness, and
+you have a chance of considering them well.
+And when it comes to reforming WIPO, among other things let’s call for
+changing its name.
+
+Chapter 16: Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+
+93
+
+16 Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+Because They Are Loaded or Confusing
+There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or 
avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or misleading; 
others
+presuppose a viewpoint that we hope you disagree with. (See also “Categories
+of Free and Nonfree Software,” on p. 77.)
+BSD-Style
+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it lumps 
together
+licenses that have important differences. For instance, the original BSD 
license
+with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU General Public 
License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the GPL.
+To avoid confusion, it is best to name the specific license in question and
+avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”
+Closed
+Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to the term “open 
source.”
+In the free software movement, we do not want to be confused with the open
+source camp, so we are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage
+people to lump us in with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree
+software as “closed.” We call it “nonfree” or “proprietary.”
+Cloud Computing
+The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no clear meaning.
+It is used for a range of different activities whose only common 
characteristic is
+that they use the Internet for something beyond transmitting files. Thus, the
+term is a nexus of confusion. If you base your thinking on it, your thinking 
will
+be vague.
+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
+using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind of 
activity is
+the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term for that activity?
+Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head for a useful conclusion.
+Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, also noted the
+vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”1 He decided to use the term anyway
+1
+
+Dan Farber, “Oracle’s Ellison Nails Cloud Computing,” 26 September 2008,
+http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html.
+
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 
2008,
+2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This list was first published on http://gnu.org, in 1996. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+94
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+because, as a proprietary software developer, he isn’t motivated by the same
+ideals as we are.
+Commercial
+Please don’t use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That 
confuses two
+entirely different issues.
+A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A 
commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of 
distribution.
+Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or 
nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort 
of
+entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent.
+In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were
+almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating
+system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the
+FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to
+appear.
+Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should
+encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” 
will
+tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is 
self-contradictory, and
+dismiss the possibility. Let’s be careful not to use the word 
“commercial” in
+that way.
+Compensation
+To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with copyright 
carries the
+assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the sake of authors and (2) whenever
+we read something, we take on a debt to the author which we must then repay.
+The first assumption is simply false, and the second is outrageous.
+Consumer
+The term “consumer,” when used to refer to computer users, is loaded with
+assumptions we should reject. Playing a digital recording, or running a 
program,
+does not consume it.
+The terms “producer” and “consumer” come from economic theory, and 
bring
+with them its narrow perspective and misguided assumptions. They tend to warp
+your thinking.
+In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers” presumes a 
narrow role for them: it regards them as cattle that passively graze on what 
others
+make available to them.
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA, the “Consumer
+Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act,” which would require copying
+restriction facilities in every digital device. If all the users do is 
“consume,” then
+why should they mind?
+The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends to go hand
+in hand with the idea that published works are mere “content.”
+
+Chapter 16: Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+
+95
+
+To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we suggest
+terms such as “individuals” and “citizens.”
+Content
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say
+you are “content,” but using the word as a noun to describe written and 
other
+works of authorship adopts an attitude you might rather avoid. It regards these
+works as a commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect,
+it disparages the works themselves.
+Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased
+copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as they say) of 
the works.
+The term “content” reveals their real attitude towards these works and 
their
+authors. (See Courtney Love’s open letter to Steve Case2 and search for 
“content
+provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term 
“intellectual
+property” is also biased and confusing.)
+However, as long as other people use the term “content provider,” political
+dissidents can well call themselves “malcontent providers.”
+The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity. “Content”
+means “some sort of information,” and “management” in this context 
means
+“doing something with it.” So a “content management system” is a system
+for doing something to some sort of information. Nearly all programs fit that
+description.
+In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages on a
+web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision system” (WRS).
+Creator
+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a 
deity (“the creator”). The term is used by publishers to elevate authors’ 
moral
+standing above that of ordinary people in order to justify giving them 
increased
+copyright power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We 
recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases “copyright 
holder” is
+what you really mean.
+Digital Goods
+The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of authorship, 
erroneously identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be copied, and 
which
+therefore have to be manufactured and sold.
+2
+
+An unedited transcript of American rock musician Courtney Love’s 16 May 2000
+speech to the Digital Hollywood online-entertainment conference, in New York, 
is
+available at http://salon.com/technology/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.
+html.
+
+96
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Digital Rights Management
+“Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes designed to impose
+restrictions on computer users. The use of the word “rights” in this term 
is propaganda, designed to lead you unawares into seeing the issue from the 
viewpoint
+of the few that impose the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general 
public
+on whom these restrictions are imposed.
+Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and “digital
+handcuffs.”
+Ecosystem
+It is a mistake to describe the free software community, or any human 
community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies the absence of 
ethical
+judgment.
+The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of nonjudgmental 
observation: don’t ask how what should happen, just study and explain what 
does
+happen. In an ecosystem, some organisms consume other organisms. We do not
+ask whether it is fair for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a 
plant, we
+only observe that they do so. Species’ populations grow or shrink according 
to
+the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong, merely an ecological 
phenomenon.
+By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their surroundings
+can decide to preserve things that, on their own, might vanish—such as civil
+society, democracy, human rights, peace, public health, clean air and water,
+endangered species, traditional arts. . . and computer users’ freedom.
+For Free
+If you want to say that a program is free software, please don’t say that it 
is
+available “for free.” That term specifically means “for zero price.” 
Free software
+is a matter of freedom, not price.
+Free software copies are often available for free—for example, by downloading
+via FTP. But free software copies are also available for a price on CD-ROMs;
+meanwhile, proprietary software copies are occasionally available for free in 
promotions, and some proprietary packages are normally available at no charge to
+certain users.
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available “as free 
software.”
+Freely Available
+Don’t use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free 
software.” The
+terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely available” if anyone can 
easily get
+a copy. “Free software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that 
have a
+copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
+
+Chapter 16: Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+
+97
+
+Freeware
+Please don’t use the term “freeware” as a synonym for “free 
software.” The term
+“freeware” was used often in the 1980s for programs released only as 
executables,
+with source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on 
definition.
+When using languages other than English, please avoid borrowing English
+terms such as “free software” or “freeware.” It is better to translate 
the term
+“free software” into your language. (Please see p. 253 for a list of 
recommended
+unambiguous translations for the term “free software” into various 
languages.)
+By using a word in your own language, you show that you are really referring
+to freedom and not just parroting some mysterious foreign marketing concept.
+The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or disturbing to your 
compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly what it says, they will 
really
+understand what the issue is.
+Give Away Software
+It’s misleading to use the term “give away” to mean “distribute a 
program as
+free software.” This locution has the same problem as “for free”: it 
implies the
+issue is price, not freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say 
“release as
+free software.”
+Hacker
+A hacker is someone who enjoys playful cleverness3 —not necessarily with 
computers. The programmers in the old MIT free software community of the 60s and
+70s referred to themselves as hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered
+the hacker community mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”
+Please don’t spread this mistake. People who break security are 
“crackers.”
+Intellectual Property
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual 
property”—a
+term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law.
+These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is 
ill-advised to
+generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” 
or about
+“patents,” or about “trademarks.”
+The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way
+to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical
+objects, and our conception of them as physical property.
+When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference
+between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared
+almost effortlessly, while material objects can’t be.
+To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm
+policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property.”
+3
+
+See my article, “On Hacking,” at http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.
+html.
+
+98
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the 
World
+“Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.
+LAMP System
+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP”—a common 
combination of software to use on a web server, except that “Linux” in this 
context
+really refers to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should be
+“GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.”
+Linux System
+Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting in 1991.
+The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU with Linux added.
+To call the whole system “Linux” is both unfair and confusing. Please call
+the complete system GNU/Linux, both to give the GNU Project credit and to
+distinguish the whole system from the kernel alone.
+Market
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software users 
in
+general, as a “market.”
+This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software community.
+If you have a free software support business, then you have clients, and you 
trade
+with them in a market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you 
success
+in your market.
+But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business, and
+the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to serve the 
public
+by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business away from a rival. To
+equate this campaign for freedom to a business’ efforts for mere success is 
to
+deny the importance of freedom and legitimize proprietary software.
+MP3 Player
+In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state digital 
audio
+players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not all. Some support
+the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and may not even support
+MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid these patents. To call such 
players
+“MP3 players” is not only confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved 
position
+of privilege which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format.
+We suggest the terms “digital audio player,” or simply “audio player” 
if context
+permits.
+
+Chapter 16: Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+
+99
+
+Open
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open source” as a substitute 
for “free
+software.” Those terms refer to a different position based on different 
values.
+Free software is a political movement; open source is a development model.
+When referring to the open source position, using its name is appropriate;
+but please do not use it to label us or our work—that leads people to think 
we
+share those views.
+PC
+It’s OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain kind of 
computer
+hardware, but please don’t use it with the implication that the computer is
+running Microsoft Windows. If you install GNU/Linux on the same computer,
+it is still a PC.
+The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running Windows.
+Photoshop
+Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind of 
photo
+manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the name of one
+particular image editing program, which should be avoided since it is 
proprietary.
+There are plenty of free alternatives, such as GIMP.
+Piracy
+Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” In 
this way,
+they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas,
+kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they
+have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes
+all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more
+complete.)
+If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like
+kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to 
describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited 
copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use 
instead. Some of
+us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with
+your neighbor.”
+PowerPoint
+Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind of slide 
presentation.
+“PowerPoint” is just the name of one particular proprietary program to make
+presentations, and there are plenty of free alternatives, such as TEX’s 
beamer
+class and OpenOffice.org’s Impress.
+
+100
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Protection
+Publishers’ lawyers love to use the term “protection” to describe 
copyright. This
+word carries the implication of preventing destruction or suffering; 
therefore, it
+encourages people to identify with the owner and publisher who benefit from
+copyright, rather than with the users who are restricted by it.
+It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms instead. For 
example,
+instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a very long time,” you can 
say,
+“Copyright lasts a very long time.”
+If you want to criticize copyright instead of supporting it, you can use the
+term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say, “Copyright 
restrictions last a
+very long time.”
+The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious features. For
+instance, “copy protection” is a feature that interferes with copying. From
+the user’s point of view, this is obstruction. So we could call that 
malicious feature “copy obstruction.” More often it is called Digital 
Restrictions
+Management (DRM)—see the Defective by Design campaign, at http://www.
+defectivebydesign.org.
+RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory)
+Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that prohibit free
+software typically have a policy of obtaining patent licenses that require a 
fixed
+fee per copy of a conforming program. They often refer to such licenses by the
+term “RAND,” which stands for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”
+That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally neither
+reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these licenses do not 
discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate against the 
free software community, and that makes them unreasonable. Thus, half of the 
term
+“RAND” is deceptive and the other half is prejudiced.
+Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory, and
+drop the use of the term “reasonable and non-discriminatory” or “RAND” 
to
+describe them. Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the 
whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it merely 
because
+patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to let those companies
+dictate the views you express.
+We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or “UFO” for short, as a 
replacement. It is accurate because the only condition in these licenses is a 
uniform
+royalty fee.
+
+Chapter 16: Words to Avoid (or Use with Care)
+
+101
+
+Sell Software
+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a 
copy of
+a free program for a sum of money is selling; but people usually associate the
+term “sell” with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use of the 
software.
+You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying either 
“distributing
+copies of a program for a fee” or “imposing proprietary restrictions on 
the use
+of a program,” depending on what you mean.
+See “Selling Free Software” (p. 65) for further discussion of this issue.
+Software Industry
+The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine that software is
+always developed by a sort of factory and then delivered to “consumers.” 
The
+free software community shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist,
+and various businesses develop free and/or nonfree software, but those that
+develop free software are not run like factories.
+The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by advocates of software
+patents. They call software development “industry” and then try to argue 
that
+this means it should be subject to patent monopolies. The European Parliament,
+rejecting software patents in 2003,4 voted to define “industry” as 
“automated
+production of material goods.”
+Theft
+Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to 
describe copyright infringement. At the same time, they ask us to treat the 
legal system as
+an authority on ethics: if copying is forbidden, it must be wrong.
+So it is pertinent to mention that the legal system—at least in the US—
+rejects the idea that copyright infringement is “theft.” Copyright 
apologists are
+making an appeal to authority. . . and misrepresenting what authority says.
+The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws
+are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define 
justice
+or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.
+Trusted Computing
+“Trusted computing” is the proponents’ name for a scheme to redesign 
computers
+so that application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of
+you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your point of view, 
it is
+“treacherous.”
+4
+
+“Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions,” 24 
September 2003, http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309.
+
+102
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Vendor
+Please don’t use the term “vendor” to refer generally to anyone that 
develops
+or packages software. Many programs are developed in order to sell copies,
+and their developers are therefore their vendors; this even includes some free
+software packages. However, many programs are developed by volunteers or 
organizations which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not 
vendors.
+Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are vendors.
+We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.
+
+Part III:
+Copyright, Copyleft
+
+Chapter 17: The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story
+
+105
+
+17 The Right to Read: A Dystopian
+Short Story
+From The Road to Tycho, a collection of articles about the antecedents of the
+Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096.
+For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz asked
+to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow
+another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask,
+except Dan.
+This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his
+computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to
+prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea
+shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school
+that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something that only pirates would
+do.
+And there wasn’t much chance that the SPA—the Software Protection
+Authority—would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned
+that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was
+read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch
+reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) 
The next
+time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as
+computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment—for not taking pains
+to prevent the crime.
+Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might
+want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a
+middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading 
fees.
+Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood
+this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research 
papers he
+read. (Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers;
+since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research
+papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)
+Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the
+library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There
+were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government
+Copyright c 1996, 2002, 2007, 2009, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was written in 1996 and was published in Communications of the
+ACM, vol. 40, n. 2, February 1997. This version is part of Free Software, Free
+Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press,
+2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+106
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal 
publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free 
public
+access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.
+There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing.
+They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank
+Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over 
the
+copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends
+about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep
+in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not
+for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.
+Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging 
tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable 
over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright
+monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use
+in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers’ developers 
were
+sent to prison.
+Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors
+in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and
+bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind
+a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.
+It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified
+system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even 
entire
+free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But
+not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you 
had
+one, without knowing your computer’s root password. And neither the FBI nor
+Microsoft Support would tell you that.
+Dan concluded that he couldn’t simply lend Lissa his computer. But he
+couldn’t refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with
+her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could
+mean she loved him too.
+Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he
+lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his
+books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime,
+but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find
+out if Lissa reported him.
+Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own
+password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what
+she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means 
of
+monitoring students’ computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It 
didn’t
+matter whether you did anything harmful—the offense was making it hard for
+the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing
+something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was.
+Students were not usually expelled for this—not directly. Instead they were
+banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their
+classes.
+
+Chapter 17: The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story
+
+107
+
+Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the
+1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. 
Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; 
they
+punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion.
+Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their
+marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy
+as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the
+Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United 
States
+Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise
+gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began
+in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.
+Author’s Note1
+The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years
+for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws 
and
+practices described above have already been proposed; many have been enacted
+into law in the US and elsewhere. In the US, the 1998 Digital Millennium
+Copyright Act (DMCA) established the legal basis to restrict the reading and
+lending of computerized books (and other works as well). The European Union
+imposed similar restrictions in a 2001 copyright directive. In France, under 
the
+DADVSI law adopted in 2006, mere possession of a copy of DeCSS, the free
+program to decrypt video on a DVD, is a crime.
+In 2001, Disney-funded Senator Hollings proposed a bill called the SSSCA
+that would require every new computer to have mandatory copy-restriction 
facilities that the user cannot bypass. Following the Clipper chip and similar 
US
+government key-escrow proposals, this shows a long-term trend: computer 
systems are increasingly set up to give absentees with clout control over the 
people
+actually using the computer system. The SSSCA was later renamed to the 
unpronounceable CBDTPA, which was glossed as the “Consume But Don’t Try
+Programming Act.”
+The Republicans took control of the US senate shortly thereafter. They are
+less tied to Hollywood than the Democrats, so they did not press these 
proposals.
+Now that the Democrats are back in control, the danger is once again higher.
+In 2001 the US began attempting to use the proposed Free Trade Area of
+the Americas (FTAA) treaty to impose the same rules on all the countries in
+the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA is one of the so-called free trade treaties,
+which are actually designed to give business increased power over democratic
+governments; imposing laws like the DMCA is typical of this spirit. The FTAA
+was effectively killed by Lula, President of Brazil, who rejected the DMCA
+requirement and others.
+Since then, the US has imposed similar requirements on countries such as
+Australia and Mexico through bilateral “free trade” agreements, and on 
countries
+such as Costa Rica through another treaty, CAFTA. Ecuador’s President Correa
+1
+
+This note has been updated several times since the first publication of the 
story.
+
+108
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+refused to sign a “free trade” agreement with the US, but I’ve heard 
Ecuador
+had adopted something like the DMCA in 2003.
+One of the ideas in the story was not proposed in reality until 2002. This
+is the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for your
+personal computers, and not let you have them.
+The proponents of this scheme have given it names such as “trusted 
computing” and “Palladium.” We call it “treacherous computing” 
because the effect
+is to make your computer obey companies even to the extent of disobeying and
+defying you. This was implemented in 2007 as part of Windows Vista; we expect
+Apple to do something similar. In this scheme, it is the manufacturer that 
keeps
+the secret code, but the FBI would have little trouble getting it.
+What Microsoft keeps is not exactly a password in the traditional sense; no
+person ever types it on a terminal. Rather, it is a signature and encryption
+key that corresponds to a second key stored in your computer. This enables
+Microsoft, and potentially any web sites that cooperate with Microsoft, the
+ultimate control over what the user can do on his own computer.
+Vista also gives Microsoft additional powers; for instance, Microsoft can
+forcibly install upgrades, and it can order all machines running Vista to 
refuse to
+run a certain device driver. The main purpose of Vista’s many restrictions 
is to
+impose DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) that users can’t overcome. The
+threat of DRM is why we have established the Defective by Design campaign.
+When this story was first written, the SPA was threatening small Internet
+service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most
+ISPs surrendered when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back
+in court. One ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland, California, refused the
+demand and was actually sued. The SPA later dropped the suit, but obtained
+the DMCA, which gave them the power they sought.
+The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publishers Association, has
+been replaced in its police-like role by the Business Software Alliance. The
+BSA is not, today, an official police force; unofficially, it acts like one. 
Using
+methods reminiscent of the erstwhile Soviet Union, it invites people to inform
+on their coworkers and friends. A BSA terror campaign in Argentina in 2001
+made slightly veiled threats that people sharing software would be raped.
+The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For 
example, a computer at one Chicago-area university displayed this message upon
+login:
+This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this
+computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are
+subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded
+by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly
+using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of
+authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly
+consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals
+possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations
+system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University
+authorities and/or law enforcement officials.
+
+Chapter 17: The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story
+
+109
+
+This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most 
everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
+References
+• United States Patent and Trademark Office, Intellectual Property [sic] and
+the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group
+on Intellectual Property [sic] Rights, Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.
+• Samuelson, Pamela, “The Copyright Grab,” Wired, January 1996, n. 4.01.
+• Boyle, James, “Sold Out,” New York Times, 31 March 1996, sec. 4, p. 15.
+• Editorial, Washington Post, “Public Data or Private Data,” 3 November 
1996, sec. C, p. 6.
+• Union for the Public Domain—an organization that aims to resist and
+reverse the overextension of copyright and patent powers.
+
+Chapter 18: Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
+
+111
+
+18 Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series
+of Errors
+Something strange and dangerous is happening in copyright law. Under the US
+Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users—those who read books, listen 
to
+music, watch movies, or run software—not for the sake of publishers or 
authors.
+Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright 
restrictions imposed on them “for their own benefit,” the US government is 
adding
+more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh
+new penalties.
+How did copyright policies come to be diametrically opposed to their stated
+purpose? And how can we bring them back into alignment with that purpose?
+To understand, we should start by looking at the root of United States 
copyright
+law: the US Constitution.
+Copyright in the US Constitution
+When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a
+copyright monopoly was proposed—and rejected. The founders of our country
+adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, 
but
+an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress. The 
Constitution
+gives permission for a copyright system with this clause (Article I, Section 8,
+Clause 8):
+[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the
+useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
+exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
+
+The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means
+benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v. Doyal,1
+the court said,
+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.
+
+This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not required by the
+Constitution, only permitted as an option—and why it is supposed to last for
+“limited times.” If copyright were a natural right, something that authors 
have
+because they deserve it, nothing could justify terminating this right after a
+certain period of time, any more than everyone’s house should become public
+property after a certain lapse of time from its construction.
+1
+
+Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 US 123, 1932.
+
+Copyright c 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This essay was first published on http://gnu.org, in 2002. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+112
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+The “Copyright Bargain”
+The copyright system works by providing privileges and thus benefits to 
publishers and authors; but it does not do this for their sake. Rather, it does 
this
+to modify their behavior: to provide an incentive for authors to write more and
+publish more. In effect, the government spends the public’s natural rights, 
on
+the public’s behalf, as part of a deal to bring the public more published 
works.
+Legal scholars call this concept the “copyright bargain.” It is like a 
government
+purchase of a highway or an airplane using taxpayers’ money, except that the
+government spends our freedom instead of our money.
+But is the bargain as it exists actually a good deal for the public? Many
+alternative bargains are possible; which one is best? Every issue of copyright
+policy is part of this question. If we misunderstand the nature of the 
question,
+we will tend to decide the issues badly.
+The Constitution authorizes granting copyright powers to authors. In practice, 
authors typically cede them to publishers; it is usually the publishers, not
+the authors, who exercise these powers and get most of the benefits, though
+authors may get a small portion. Thus it is usually the publishers that lobby 
to
+increase copyright powers. To better reflect the reality of copyright rather 
than
+the myth, this article refers to publishers rather than authors as the holders 
of
+copyright powers. It also refers to the users of copyrighted works as 
“readers,”
+even though using them does not always mean reading, because “the users” is
+remote and abstract.
+The First Error: “Striking a Balance”
+The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public 
is
+an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that
+end. Readers’ interests and publishers’ interests are thus qualitatively 
unequal
+in priority. The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the
+elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.
+It is often said that US copyright law is meant to “strike a balance” 
between
+the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this interpretation 
present
+it as a restatement of the basic position stated in the Constitution; in other
+words, it is supposed to be equivalent to the copyright bargain.
+But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different 
conceptually, and different in their implications. The balance concept assumes 
that
+the readers’ and publishers’ interests differ in importance only 
quantitatively, in
+how much weight we should give them, and in what actions they apply to. The
+term “stakeholders” is often used to frame the issue in this way; it 
assumes that
+all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally important. This view 
rejects
+the qualitative distinction between the readers’ and publishers’ interests 
which
+is at the root of the government’s participation in the copyright bargain.
+The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great 
protection for the public in the copyright bargain—the idea that copyright 
privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, never in the name 
of the
+publishers—is discarded by the “balance” interpretation. Since the 
interest of
+
+Chapter 18: Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
+
+113
+
+the publishers is regarded as an end in itself, it can justify copyright 
privileges;
+in other words, the “balance” concept says that privileges can be 
justified in the
+name of someone other than the public.
+As a practical matter, the consequence of the “balance” concept is to 
reverse
+the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The copyright bargain
+places the burden on the publishers to convince the readers to cede certain
+freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking,
+because there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from 
additional
+privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved, sufficient to 
“outweigh”
+this benefit, we are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost
+any privilege they request.
+Since the idea of “striking a balance” between publishers and readers 
denies
+the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it.
+Balancing against What?
+When the government buys something for the public, it acts on behalf of the
+public; its responsibility is to obtain the best possible deal—best for the 
public,
+not for the other party in the agreement.
+For example, when signing contracts with construction companies to build
+highways, the government aims to spend as little as possible of the public’s
+money. Government agencies use competitive bidding to push the price down.
+As a practical matter, the price cannot be zero, because contractors will not
+bid that low. Although not entitled to special consideration, they have the 
usual
+rights of citizens in a free society, including the right to refuse 
disadvantageous
+contracts; even the lowest bid will be high enough for some contractor to make
+money. So there is indeed a balance, of a kind. But it is not a deliberate
+balancing of two interests each with claim to special consideration. It is a 
balance
+between a public goal and market forces. The government tries to obtain for the
+taxpaying motorists the best deal they can get in the context of a free society
+and a free market.
+In the copyright bargain, the government spends our freedom instead of our
+money. Freedom is more precious than money, so government’s responsibility to
+spend our freedom wisely and frugally is even greater than its responsibility 
to
+spend our money thus. Governments must never put the publishers’ interests
+on a par with the public’s freedom.
+Not “Balance” but “Trade-Off ”
+The idea of balancing the readers’ interests against the publishers’ is 
the wrong
+way to judge copyright policy, but there are indeed two interests to be 
weighed:
+two interests of the readers. Readers have an interest in their own freedom
+in using published works; depending on circumstances, they may also have an
+interest in encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.
+The word “balance,” in discussions of copyright, has come to stand as 
shorthand for the idea of “striking a balance” between the readers and the 
publishers.
+
+114
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Therefore, to use the word “balance” in regard to the readers’ two 
interests would
+be confusing. We need another term.
+In general, when one party has two goals that partly conflict, and cannot
+completely achieve both of them, we call this a “trade-off.” Therefore, 
rather
+than speaking of “striking the right balance” between parties, we should 
speak
+of “finding the right trade-off between spending our freedom and keeping 
it.”
+The Second Error: Maximizing One Output
+The second mistake in copyright policy consists of adopting the goal of
+maximizing—not just increasing—the number of published works.
+The
+erroneous concept of “striking a balance” elevated the publishers to 
parity with
+the readers; this second error places them far above the readers.
+When we purchase something, we do not generally buy the whole quantity
+in stock or the most expensive model. Instead we conserve funds for other
+purchases, by buying only what we need of any particular good, and choosing
+a model of sufficient rather than highest quality. The principle of diminishing
+returns suggests that spending all our money on one particular good is likely 
to
+be an inefficient allocation of resources; we generally choose to keep some 
money
+for another use.
+Diminishing returns applies to copyright just as to any other purchase. The
+first freedoms we should trade away are those we miss the least, and whose
+sacrifice gives the largest encouragement to publication. As we trade 
additional
+freedoms that cut closer to home, we find that each trade is a bigger sacrifice
+than the last, while bringing a smaller increment in literary activity. Well 
before
+the increment becomes zero, we may well say it is not worth its incremental
+price; we would then settle on a bargain whose overall result is to increase 
the
+amount of publication, but not to the utmost possible extent.
+Accepting the goal of maximizing publication rejects all these wiser, more
+advantageous bargains in advance—it dictates that the public must cede nearly
+all of its freedom to use published works, for just a little more publication.
+The Rhetoric of Maximization
+In practice, the goal of maximizing publication regardless of the cost to 
freedom is supported by widespread rhetoric which asserts that public copying is
+illegitimate, unfair, and intrinsically wrong. For instance, the publishers 
call
+people who copy “pirates,” a smear term designed to equate sharing 
information with your neighbor with attacking a ship. (This smear term was 
formerly
+used by authors to describe publishers who found lawful ways to publish 
unauthorized editions; its modern use by the publishers is almost the reverse.) 
This
+rhetoric directly rejects the constitutional basis for copyright, but presents 
itself
+as representing the unquestioned tradition of the American legal system.
+The “pirate” rhetoric is typically accepted because it so pervades the 
media
+that few people realize how radical it is. It is effective because if copying 
by
+the public is fundamentally illegitimate, we can never object to the 
publishers’
+demand that we surrender our freedom to do so. In other words, when the
+
+Chapter 18: Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
+
+115
+
+public is challenged to show why publishers should not receive some additional
+power, the most important reason of all—“We want to copy”—is 
disqualified in
+advance.
+This leaves no way to argue against increasing copyright power except using
+side issues. Hence, opposition to stronger copyright powers today almost 
exclusively cites side issues, and never dares cite the freedom to distribute 
copies as
+a legitimate public value.
+As a practical matter, the goal of maximization enables publishers to argue
+that “A certain practice is reducing our sales—or we think it might—so we
+presume it diminishes publication by some unknown amount, and therefore it
+should be prohibited.” We are led to the outrageous conclusion that the 
public
+good is measured by publishers’ sales: What’s good for General Media is 
good
+for the USA.
+The Third Error: Maximizing Publishers’ Power
+Once the publishers have obtained assent to the policy goal of maximizing 
publication output at any cost, their next step is to infer that this requires 
giving
+them the maximum possible powers—making copyright cover every imaginable
+use of a work, or applying some other legal tool such as “shrink wrap” 
licenses
+to equivalent effect. This goal, which entails the abolition of “fair use” 
and the
+“right of first sale,” is being pressed at every available level of 
government, from
+states of the US to international bodies.
+This step is erroneous because strict copyright rules obstruct the creation
+of useful new works. For instance, Shakespeare borrowed the plots of some of
+his plays from works others had published a few decades before, so if today’s
+copyright law had been in effect, his plays would have been illegal.
+Even if we wanted the highest possible rate of publication, regardless of cost
+to the public, maximizing publishers’ power is the wrong way to get it. As a
+means of promoting progress, it is self-defeating.
+The Results of the Three Errors
+The current trend in copyright legislation is to hand publishers broader powers
+for longer periods of time. The conceptual basis of copyright, as it emerges
+distorted from the series of errors, rarely offers a basis for saying no. 
Legislators
+give lip service to the idea that copyright serves the public, while in fact 
giving
+publishers whatever they ask for.
+For example, here is what Senator Hatch said when introducing S. 483,2 a
+1995 bill to increase the term of copyright by 20 years:
+I believe we are now at such a point with respect to the question of whether
+the current term of copyright adequately protects the interests of authors
+2
+
+Congressional Record, S. 483, “The Copyright Term Extension Act of 1995,”
+2 March 1995, pp. S3390–4.
+
+116
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+and the related question of whether the term of protection continues to
+provide a sufficient incentive for the creation of new works of authorship.3
+
+This bill extended the copyright on already published works written since
+the 1920s. This change was a giveaway to publishers with no possible benefit
+to the public, since there is no way to retroactively increase now the number 
of
+books published back then. Yet it cost the public a freedom that is meaningful
+today—the freedom to redistribute books from that era.
+The bill also extended the copyrights of works yet to be written. For works
+made for hire, copyright would last 95 years instead of the present 75 years.
+Theoretically this would increase the incentive to write new works; but any 
publisher that claims to need this extra incentive should be required to 
substantiate
+the claim with projected balance sheets for 75 years in the future.
+Needless to say, Congress did not question the publishers’ arguments: a law
+extending copyright was enacted in 1998. It was officially called the Sonny
+Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, named after one of its sponsors who died
+earlier that year. We usually call it the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act, since
+we presume its real motive was to prevent the copyright on the appearance of
+Mickey Mouse from expiring. Bono’s widow, who served the rest of his term,
+made this statement:
+Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I
+am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I
+invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of
+the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti’s4 proposal
+for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at
+that next Congress.5
+
+The Supreme Court later heard a case that sought to overturn the law on
+the grounds that the retroactive extension fails to serve the Constitution’s 
goal
+of promoting progress. The court responded by abdicating its responsibility to
+judge the question; on copyright, the Constitution requires only lip service.
+Another law, passed in 1997, made it a felony to make sufficiently many
+copies of any published work, even if you give them away to friends just to be
+nice. Previously this was not a crime in the US at all.
+An even worse law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was designed 
to bring back copy protection (which computer users detest) by making
+it a crime to break copy protection, or even publish information about how to
+break it. This law ought to be called the “Domination by Media Corporations
+Act” because it effectively offers publishers the chance to write their own 
copyright law. It says they can impose any restrictions whatsoever on the use 
of a
+3
+
+4
+5
+
+Congressional Record, “Statement on Introduced Bills and Joint 
Resolutions,”
+2 March 1995, p. S3390, http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-03-02/pdf/
+CREC-1995-03-02-pt1-PgS3390-2.pdf.
+Jack Valenti was a longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of
+America.
+Congressional Record, remarks of Rep. Bono, 7 October 1998,
+p. H9952, http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-10-07/pdf/
+CREC-1998-10-07-pt1-PgH9946.pdf.
+
+Chapter 18: Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
+
+117
+
+work, and these restrictions take the force of law provided the work contains
+some sort of encryption or license manager to enforce them.
+One of the arguments offered for this bill was that it would implement a
+recent treaty to increase copyright powers. The treaty was promulgated by
+the World “Intellectual Property” Organization, an organization dominated 
by
+copyright- and patent-holding interests, with the aid of pressure from the 
Clinton
+administration; since the treaty only increases copyright power, whether it 
serves
+the public interest in any country is doubtful. In any case, the bill went far
+beyond what the treaty required.
+Libraries were a key source of opposition to this bill, especially to the 
aspects that block the forms of copying that are considered fair use. How did 
the
+publishers respond? Former representative Pat Schroeder, now a lobbyist for
+the Association of American Publishers, said that the publishers “could not 
live
+with what [the libraries were] asking for.” Since the libraries were asking 
only
+to preserve part of the status quo, one might respond by wondering how the
+publishers had survived until the present day.
+Congressman Barney Frank, in a meeting with me and others who opposed
+this bill, showed how far the US Constitution’s view of copyright has been 
disregarded. He said that new powers, backed by criminal penalties, were needed
+urgently because the “movie industry is worried,” as well as the “music 
industry” and other “industries.” I asked him, “But is this in the 
public interest?”
+His response was telling: “Why are you talking about the public interest? 
These
+creative people don’t have to give up their rights for the public 
interest!” The
+“industry” has been identified with the “creative people” it hires, 
copyright has
+been treated as its entitlement, and the Constitution has been turned upside
+down.
+The DMCA was enacted in 1998. As enacted, it says that fair use remains
+nominally legitimate, but allows publishers to prohibit all software or 
hardware
+that you could practice it with. Effectively, fair use is prohibited.
+Based on this law, the movie industry has imposed censorship on free software 
for reading and playing DVDs, and even on the information about how
+to read them. In April 2001, Professor Edward Felten of Princeton University
+was intimidated by lawsuit threats from the Recording Industry Association of
+America (RIAA) into withdrawing a scientific paper stating what he had learned
+about a proposed encryption system for restricting access to recorded music.
+We are also beginning to see e-books that take away many of readers’ 
traditional freedoms—for instance, the freedom to lend a book to your friend, 
to
+sell it to a used book store, to borrow it from a library, to buy it without 
giving
+your name to a corporate data bank, even the freedom to read it twice. 
Encrypted e-books generally restrict all these activities—you can read them 
only
+with special secret software designed to restrict you.
+I will never buy one of these encrypted, restricted e-books, and I hope you
+will reject them too. If an e-book doesn’t give you the same freedoms as a
+traditional paper book, don’t accept it!
+Anyone independently releasing software that can read restricted e-books
+risks prosecution. A Russian programmer, Dmitry Sklyarov, was arrested in
+
+118
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+2001 while visiting the US to speak at a conference, because he had written 
such
+a program in Russia, where it was lawful to do so. Now Russia is preparing a
+law to prohibit it too, and the European Union recently adopted one.
+Mass-market e-books have been a commercial failure so far, but not because
+readers chose to defend their freedom; they were unattractive for other 
reasons,
+such as that computer display screens are not easy surfaces to read from. We
+can’t rely on this happy accident to protect us in the long term; the next 
attempt
+to promote e-books will use “electronic paper”—book-like objects into 
which an
+encrypted, restricted e-book can be downloaded. If this paper-like surface 
proves
+more appealing than today’s display screens, we will have to defend our 
freedom
+in order to keep it. Meanwhile, e-books are making inroads in niches: NYU
+and other dental schools require students to buy their textbooks in the form of
+restricted e-books.
+The media companies are not satisfied yet. In 2001, Disney-funded Senator
+Hollings proposed a bill called the “Security Systems Standards and 
Certification
+Act” (SSSCA),6 which would require all computers (and other digital recording
+and playback devices) to have government-mandated copy-restriction systems.
+That is their ultimate goal, but the first item on their agenda is to prohibit 
any
+equipment that can tune digital HDTV unless it is designed to be impossible
+for the public to “tamper with” (i.e., modify for their own purposes). 
Since
+free software is software that users can modify, we face here for the first 
time a
+proposed law that explicitly prohibits free software for a certain job. 
Prohibition
+of other jobs will surely follow. If the FCC adopts this rule, existing free 
software
+such as GNU Radio would be censored.
+To block these bills and rules requires political action.7
+Finding the Right Bargain
+What is the proper way to decide copyright policy? If copyright is a bargain
+made on behalf of the public, it should serve the public interest above all. 
The
+government’s duty when selling the public’s freedom is to sell only what 
it must,
+and sell it as dearly as possible. At the very least, we should pare back the
+extent of copyright as much as possible while maintaining a comparable level of
+publication.
+Since we cannot find this minimum price in freedom through competitive
+bidding, as we do for construction projects, how can we find it?
+One possible method is to reduce copyright privileges in stages, and observe
+the results. By seeing if and when measurable diminutions in publication occur,
+we will learn how much copyright power is really necessary to achieve the 
public’s
+purposes. We must judge this by actual observation, not by what publishers say
+6
+
+7
+
+Since renamed to the unpronounceable CBDTPA, for which a good mnemonic is
+“Consume, But Don’t Try Programming Anything,” but it really stands for 
the
+“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.”
+If you would like to help, I recommend the web sites http://defectivebydesign.
+org, http://publicknowledge.org, and http://eff.org.
+
+Chapter 18: Misinterpreting Copyright—A Series of Errors
+
+119
+
+will happen, because they have every incentive to make exaggerated predictions
+of doom if their powers are reduced in any way.
+Copyright policy includes several independent dimensions, which can be 
adjusted separately. After we find the necessary minimum for one policy 
dimension,
+it may still be possible to reduce other dimensions of copyright while 
maintaining
+the desired publication level.
+One important dimension of copyright is its duration, which is now typically
+on the order of a century. Reducing the monopoly on copying to ten years,
+starting from the date when a work is published, would be a good first step.
+Another aspect of copyright, which covers the making of derivative works, could
+continue for a longer period.
+Why count from the date of publication? Because copyright on unpublished
+works does not directly limit readers’ freedom; whether we are free to copy a
+work is moot when we do not have copies. So giving authors a longer time to get
+a work published does no harm. Authors (who generally do own the copyright
+prior to publication) will rarely choose to delay publication just to push back
+the end of the copyright term.
+Why ten years? Because that is a safe proposal; we can be confident on
+practical grounds that this reduction would have little impact on the overall
+viability of publishing today. In most media and genres, successful works are
+very profitable in just a few years, and even successful works are usually out 
of
+print well before ten. Even for reference works, whose useful life may be many
+decades, ten-year copyright should suffice: updated editions are issued 
regularly,
+and many readers will buy the copyrighted current edition rather than copy a
+ten-year-old public domain version.
+Ten years may still be longer than necessary; once things settle down, we
+could try a further reduction to tune the system. At a panel on copyright at a
+literary convention, where I proposed the ten-year term, a noted fantasy author
+sitting beside me objected vehemently, saying that anything beyond five years
+was intolerable.
+But we don’t have to apply the same time span to all kinds of works. 
Maintaining the utmost uniformity of copyright policy is not crucial to the 
public
+interest, and copyright law already has many exceptions for specific uses and
+media. It would be foolish to pay for every highway project at the rates 
necessary for the most difficult projects in the most expensive regions of the 
country;
+it is equally foolish to “pay” for all kinds of art with the greatest 
price in freedom
+that we find necessary for any one kind.
+So perhaps novels, dictionaries, computer programs, songs, symphonies, and
+movies should have different durations of copyright, so that we can reduce the
+duration for each kind of work to what is necessary for many such works to be
+published. Perhaps movies over one hour long could have a 20-year copyright,
+because of the expense of producing them. In my own field, computer 
programming, three years should suffice, because product cycles are even 
shorter than
+that.
+Another dimension of copyright policy is the extent of fair use: some ways
+of reproducing all or part of a published work that are legally permitted even
+
+120
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+though it is copyrighted. The natural first step in reducing this dimension of
+copyright power is to permit occasional private small-quantity noncommercial
+copying and distribution among individuals. This would eliminate the intrusion
+of the copyright police into people’s private lives, but would probably have 
little effect on the sales of published works. (It may be necessary to take 
other
+legal steps to ensure that shrink-wrap licenses cannot be used to substitute 
for
+copyright in restricting such copying.) The experience of Napster shows that
+we should also permit noncommercial verbatim redistribution to the general
+public—when so many of the public want to copy and share, and find it so 
useful, only draconian measures will stop them, and the public deserves to get 
what
+it wants.
+For novels, and in general for works that are used for entertainment, 
noncommercial verbatim redistribution may be sufficient freedom for the 
readers. Computer programs, being used for functional purposes (to get jobs 
done), call for
+additional freedoms beyond that, including the freedom to publish an improved
+version. See “The Free Software Definition,” in this book, for an 
explanation
+of the freedoms that software users should have. But it may be an acceptable
+compromise for these freedoms to be universally available only after a delay of
+two or three years from the program’s publication.
+Changes like these could bring copyright into line with the public’s wish to
+use digital technology to copy. Publishers will no doubt find these proposals
+“unbalanced”; they may threaten to take their marbles and go home, but they
+won’t really do it, because the game will remain profitable and it will be 
the
+only game in town.
+As we consider reductions in copyright power, we must make sure media
+companies do not simply replace it with end-user license agreements. It would 
be
+necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply restrictions on copying 
that go
+beyond those of copyright. Such limitations on what mass-market nonnegotiated
+contracts can require are a standard part of the US legal system.
+A Personal Note
+I am a software designer, not a legal scholar. I’ve become concerned with 
copyright issues because there’s no avoiding them in the world of computer 
networks,
+such as the Internet. As a user of computers and networks for 30 years, I value
+the freedoms that we have lost, and the ones we may lose next. As an author, I
+can reject the romantic mystique of the author as semidivine creator, often 
cited
+by publishers to justify increased copyright powers for authors—powers which
+these authors will then sign away to publishers.
+Most of this article consists of facts and reasoning that you can check, and
+proposals on which you can form your own opinions. But I ask you to accept one
+thing on my word alone: that authors like me don’t deserve special power over
+you. If you wish to reward me further for the software or books I have written,
+I would gratefully accept a check—but please don’t surrender your freedom 
in
+my name.
+
+Chapter 19: Science Must Push Copyright Aside
+
+121
+
+19 Science Must Push Copyright Aside
+It should be a truism that the scientific literature exists to disseminate 
scientific
+knowledge, and that scientific journals exist to facilitate the process. It 
therefore
+follows that rules for use of the scientific literature should be designed to 
help
+achieve that goal.
+The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the age of
+the printing press, an inherently centralized method of mass-production 
copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal articles restricted only 
journal publishers—requiring them to obtain permission to publish an 
article—and
+would-be plagiarists. It helped journals to operate and disseminate knowledge,
+without interfering with the useful work of scientists or students, either as 
writers
+or readers of articles. These rules fit that system well.
+The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the World Wide
+Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum dissemination of scientific
+articles, and knowledge, on the web? Articles should be distributed in 
nonproprietary formats, with open access for all. And everyone should have the 
right to
+“mirror” articles—that is, to republish them verbatim with proper 
attribution.
+These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when they are 
distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need to change the 
present
+copyright system as it applies to paper publication of journals because the 
problem is not in that domain.
+Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms that began
+this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe that the purpose of 
scientific literature is to enable them to publish journals so as to collect 
subscriptions
+from scientists and students. Such thinking is known as “confusion of the 
means
+with the ends.”
+Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the scientific 
literature
+to those who can and will pay for it. They use copyright law, which is still in
+force despite its inappropriateness for computer networks, as an excuse to stop
+scientists from choosing new rules.
+For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity’s future, we must reject
+that approach at its root—not merely the obstructive systems that have been
+instituted, but the mistaken priorities that inspired them.
+Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires expensive
+high-powered server machines, and that they must charge access fees to pay
+for these servers. This “problem” is a consequence of its own 
“solution.” Give
+everyone the freedom to mirror, and libraries around the world will set up 
mirror sites to meet the demand. This decentralized solution will reduce network
+Copyright c 2001 Richard Stallman
+This essay was first published in Nature magazine’s Web Debates forum, on
+8 June 2001. This version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected 
Essays of
+Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+122
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+bandwidth needs and provide faster access, all the while protecting the 
scholarly
+record against accidental loss.
+Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for access. Let
+us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this tail need not wag the
+dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is between 1 percent and 3 percent
+of the cost of funding the research to produce it. Such a small percentage of 
the
+cost can hardly justify obstructing the use of the results.
+Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example, through page
+charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the research sponsors. The
+sponsors should not mind, given that they currently pay for publication in a 
more
+cumbersome way, through overhead fees for the university library’s 
subscription
+to the journal. By changing the economic model to charge editing costs to the
+research sponsors, we can eliminate the apparent need to restrict access. The
+occasional author who is not affiliated with an institution or company, and who
+has no research sponsor, could be exempted from page charges, with costs levied
+on institution-based authors.
+Another justification for access fees to online publications is to fund 
conversion of the print archives of a journal into online form. That work needs 
to
+be done, but we should seek alternative ways of funding it that do not involve
+obstructing access to the result. The work itself will not be any more 
difficult, or
+cost any more. It is self-defeating to digitize the archives and waste the 
results
+by restricting access.
+The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote the Progress of
+Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of science, science must push
+copyright out of the way.
+
+Chapter 20: Freedom—or Copyright
+
+123
+
+20 Freedom—or Copyright
+This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom apply in some
+cases to other works of authorship and art. It’s included here since it 
involves
+the application of the ideas of free software.
+
+Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an industrial 
regulation on the business of writing and publishing. The aim was to encourage
+the publication of a diversity of written works. The means was to require 
publishers to get the author’s permission to publish recent writings. This 
enabled
+authors to get income from publishers, which facilitated and encouraged 
writing.
+The general reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little: 
copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary reader could 
do.
+That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for the public, and therefore
+arguably legitimate.
+Well and good—back then.
+Now we have a new way of distributing information: computers and networks. 
Their benefit is that they facilitate copying and manipulating information, 
including software, musical recordings, books, and movies. They offer the
+possibility of unlimited access to all sorts of data—an information utopia.
+One obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers and listeners who made
+use of their new ability to copy and share published information were 
technically
+copyright infringers. The same law which had formerly acted as a beneficial
+industrial regulation on publishers had become a restriction on the public it 
was
+meant to serve.
+In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is usually
+soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power. The publishers’
+lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking advantage of the power
+of their computers, and found copyright a handy weapon. Under their influence,
+rather than relaxing copyright rules to suit the new circumstances, governments
+made them stricter than ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of 
sharing. The latest fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, 
known
+as “three strikes,” is to cut off people’s Internet connections if they 
share.
+But that wasn’t the worst of it. Computers can be powerful tools of 
domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the software they 
run.
+The publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format, which
+only specially authorized software could view, they could gain unprecedented
+power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify themselves, every time
+Copyright c 2008, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2008. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+124
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a video. That is the publishers’
+dream: a pay-per-view universe.
+The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This law gave publishers power to write
+their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the code of the authorized
+player software. Under this practice, called Digital Restrictions Management,
+or DRM, even reading or listening without authorization is forbidden.
+We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other analog
+media. But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms will not transfer.
+Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend;
+no more borrowing one from the public library—no more “leaks” that might
+give someone a chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book
+anonymously with cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That
+is the world the publishers want to impose on us. If you buy the Amazon Kindle
+(we call it the Swindle) or the Sony Reader (we call it the Shreader for what 
it
+threatens to do to books), you pay to establish that world.
+The Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase books
+remotely. Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing copies, purchased
+from Amazon, of Orwell’s book 1984. Evidently Amazon’s name for this 
product
+reflects the intention to burn our books.
+Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because propaganda
+expressions such as “protect authors” and “intellectual property” have 
convinced
+readers that their rights do not count. These terms implicitly assume that
+publishers deserve special power in the name of the authors, that we are 
morally
+obliged to bow to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear
+anything without paying for permission.
+The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it in the
+name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would have you believe
+that copyright is a natural right of authors, and that we the public must 
suffer
+it no matter how painful it is. They call sharing “piracy,” equating 
helping your
+neighbor with attacking a ship.
+They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep art alive.
+Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it isn’t true. Public 
sharing of
+copies is likely to increase the sales of most works, and decrease sales only 
for
+big hits.
+Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing. Stephen King got
+hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted e-book serial with no
+obstacle to copying and sharing. (He was dissatisfied with that amount and
+called the experiment a failure, but it looks like a success to me.) Radiohead
+made millions in 2007 by inviting fans to copy an album and pay what they
+wished, while it was also shared through peer-to-peer. In 2008, Nine Inch Nails
+
+Chapter 20: Freedom—or Copyright
+
+125
+
+released an album with permission to share copies and made $750,000 in a few
+days.1
+The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to bestsellers.
+Many artists of various levels of fame now make an adequate living through
+voluntary support:2 donations and merchandise purchases of their fans. Kevin
+Kelly3 estimates the artist need only find around 1,000 true fans.4
+When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
+someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be easy to set
+up a much better system to support the arts. When you view a work, there
+will be a button you can press saying, “Click here to send the artist one 
dollar.”
+Wouldn’t you press it, at least once a week?
+Another good way to support music and the arts is with tax funds—perhaps
+a tax on blank media or on Internet connectivity. The state should distribute
+the tax money entirely to the artists, not waste it on corporate executives. 
But
+the state should not distribute it in linear proportion to popularity, because
+that would give most of it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all 
the
+other artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or something
+similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000 times the popularity of
+a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as much money as B. With the cube
+root, A will get 10 times as much as B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger 
share
+than a less popular artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really
+need this support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support 
the
+arts.
+The Global Patronage5 proposal combines aspects of those two systems, 
incorporating mandatory payments with voluntary allocation among artists.
+In Spain, this tax system should replace the SGAE6 and its canon, which
+could be eliminated.
+To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the noncommercial
+copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit DRM. But until we
+win this battle, you must protect yourself: don’t buy any products with DRM
+unless you personally have the means to break the DRM. Never use a product
+designed to attack your freedom unless you can nullify the attack.
+
+1
+
+2
+
+3
+4
+5
+6
+
+“Nine Inch Nails Made at Least $750k from CC Release in Two Days,” posted
+by Cory Doctorow, 5 March 2008, http://boingboing.net/2008/03/05/
+nine-inch-nails-made.html.
+Mike Masnick, “The Future of Music Business Models (and Those Who Are
+Already There),” 25 January 2010, http://techdirt.com/articles/20091119/
+1634117011.shtml.
+Kevin Kelly is a commentator on digital culture and the founder of Wired 
magazine.
+Kevin Kelly, “1,000 True Fans,” 4 March 2008, http://kk.org/thetechnium/
+archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php.
+See http://mecenatglobal.org/ for more information.
+The SGAE is Spain’s main copyright collective for composers, authors, and 
publishers.
+
+Chapter 21: What Is Copyleft?
+
+127
+
+21 What Is Copyleft?
+Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free, and
+requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.
+The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public
+domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their
+improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to
+convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many
+or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive
+the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original
+author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
+In the GNU Project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute
+and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might
+have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting
+GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that 
anyone
+who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the
+freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has
+freedom.
+Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free
+software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only
+because of this.
+Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute improvements to
+free software get permission to do so. These programmers often work for 
companies or universities that would do almost anything to get more money. A
+programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her
+employer may want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.
+When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the improved
+version except as free software, the employer usually decides to release it as 
free
+software rather than throw it away.
+To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add
+distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights
+to use, modify, and redistribute the program’s code, or any program derived
+from it, but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and
+the freedoms become legally inseparable.
+Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users’ 
freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That’s why we reverse 
the
+name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”
+Copyright c 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 
2007,
+2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 1996. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+128
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn’t mean
+abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible.
+The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to 
leave”—only to the
+direction which is the inverse of “right.”
+Copyleft is a general concept, and you can’t use a general concept directly;
+you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In the GNU Project,
+the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in
+the GNU General Public License (p. 171). The GNU General Public License is
+often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions
+page about the GNU GPL, at http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html. You
+can also read about why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors,
+at http://gnu.org/copyleft/why-assign.html.
+An alternate form of copyleft, the GNU Lesser General Public License
+(LGPL) (p. 189), applies to a few (but not all) GNU libraries. To learn more
+about properly using the LGPL, please read the article “Why You Shouldn’t
+Use the Lesser GPL for Your Next Library,” available at http://gnu.org/
+philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html.
+The GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) (p. 193) is a form of copyleft
+intended for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone
+the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without 
modifications,
+either commercially or noncommercially.
+The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU source
+code distribution.
+All these licenses are designed so that you can easily apply them to your own
+works, assuming you are the copyright holder. You don’t have to modify the
+license to do this, just include a copy of the license in the work, and add 
notices
+in the source files that refer properly to the license.
+Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it easy
+to copy code between various different programs. When they all have the same
+distribution terms, there is no problem. The Lesser GPL, version 2, includes
+a provision that lets you alter the distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so
+that you can copy code into another program covered by the GPL. Version 3
+of the Lesser GPL is built as an exception added to GPL version 3, making the
+compatibility automatic.
+If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the GNU
+LGPL, please see the license instructions page, at http://gnu.org/copyleft/
+gpl-howto.html, for advice. Please note that you must use the entire text of
+the license you choose. Each is an integral whole, and partial copies are not
+permitted.
+If you would like to copyleft your manual with the GNU FDL, please see the
+instructions at the end of the FDL text (p. 201), and the GFDL instructions
+page, at http://gnu.org/copyleft/fdl-howto.html. Again, partial copies
+are not permitted.
+
+Chapter 22: Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism
+
+129
+
+22 Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism
+Every decision a person makes stems from the person’s values and goals. 
People
+can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, love, survival, fun, 
and
+freedom, are just some of the goals that a good person might have. When the
+goal is a matter of principle, we call that idealism.
+My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom 
and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing
+proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society 
better.
+That’s the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written the
+way it is—as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program must be free
+software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my code available for 
use in
+free software, and not for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage 
other
+people who write software to make it free as well. I figure that since 
proprietary
+software developers use copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can
+use copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their own: they can use
+our code.
+Not everyone who uses the GNU GPL has this goal. Many years ago, a friend
+of mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under noncopyleft terms,
+and he responded more or less like this: “Sometimes I work on free software,
+and sometimes I work on proprietary software—but when I work on proprietary
+software, I expect to get paid.”
+He was willing to share his work with a community that shares software, but
+saw no reason to give a handout to a business making products that would be
+off-limits to our community. His goal was different from mine, but he decided
+that the GNU GPL was useful for his goal too.
+If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough—
+you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. In other words,
+you need to be “pragmatic.” Is the GPL pragmatic? Let’s look at its 
results.
+Consider GNU C++. Why do we have a free C++ compiler? Only because
+the GNU GPL said it had to be free. GNU C++ was developed by an industry
+consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler. MCC normally makes its
+work as proprietary as can be. But they made the C++ front end free software,
+because the GNU GPL said that was the only way they could release it. The C++
+front end included many new files, but since they were meant to be linked with
+GCC, the GPL did apply to them. The benefit to our community is evident.
+Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end
+proprietary; they proposed to release it as ‘.o’ files, and let users link 
them with
+the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL’s requirements.
+Copyright c 1998, 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This version of this essay is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected 
Essays
+of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+130
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not
+allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software.
+Those examples happened years ago, but the GNU GPL continues to bring
+us more free software.
+Many GNU libraries are covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License,
+but not all. One GNU library which is covered by the ordinary GNU GPL is
+Readline, which implements command-line editing. I once found out about a
+nonfree program which was designed to use Readline, and told the developer
+this was not allowed. He could have taken command-line editing out of the
+program, but what he actually did was rerelease it under the GPL. Now it is
+free software.
+The programmers who write improvements to GCC (or Emacs, or Bash,
+or Linux, or any GPL-covered program) are often employed by companies or
+universities. When the programmer wants to return his improvements to the
+community, and see his code in the next release, the boss may say, “Hold on
+there—your code belongs to us! We don’t want to share it; we have decided 
to
+turn your improved version into a proprietary software product.”
+Here the GNU GPL comes to the rescue. The programmer shows the boss
+that this proprietary software product would be copyright infringement, and the
+boss realizes that he has only two choices: release the new code as free 
software,
+or not at all. Almost always he lets the programmer do as he intended all 
along,
+and the code goes into the next release.
+The GNU GPL is not Mr. Nice Guy. It says no to some of the things that
+people sometimes want to do. There are users who say that this is a bad 
thing—
+that the GPL “excludes” some proprietary software developers who “need 
to be
+brought into the free software community.”
+But we are not excluding them from our community; they are choosing not
+to enter. Their decision to make software proprietary is a decision to stay out
+of our community. Being in our community means joining in cooperation with
+us; we cannot “bring them into our community” if they don’t want to join.
+What we can do is offer them an inducement to join. The GNU GPL is
+designed to make an inducement from our existing software: “If you will make
+your software free, you can use this code.” Of course, it won’t win ’em 
all, but
+it wins some of the time.
+Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, but
+its developers often want handouts from us. Free software users can offer free
+software developers strokes for the ego—recognition and gratitude—but it 
can
+be very tempting when a business tells you, “Just let us put your package in
+our proprietary program, and your program will be used by many thousands of
+people!” The temptation can be powerful, but in the long run we are all 
better
+off if we resist it.
+The temptation and pressure are harder to recognize when they come indirectly, 
through free software organizations that have adopted a policy of catering
+to proprietary software. The X Consortium (and its successor, the Open Group)
+offers an example: funded by companies that made proprietary software, they
+
+Chapter 22: Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism
+
+131
+
+strived for a decade to persuade programmers not to use copyleft. When the
+Open Group tried to make X11R6.4 nonfree software, those of us who had 
resisted that pressure were glad that we did.
+In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with nonfree 
distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and rereleased it
+under the same noncopyleft free software license that was used for X11R6.3.
+Thank you, Open Group—but this subsequent reversal does not invalidate the
+conclusions we draw from the fact that adding the restrictions was possible.
+Pragmatically speaking, thinking about greater long-term goals will
+strengthen your will to resist this pressure. If you focus your mind on the
+freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you will find the
+strength to do it. “Stand for something, or you will fall for anything.”
+And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community. . . if “hard-nosed 
realists”
+say that profit is the only ideal. . . just ignore them, and use copyleft all 
the same.
+
+Part IV:
+Software Patents:
+Danger to Programmers
+
+Chapter 23: Anatomy of a Trivial Patent
+
+135
+
+23 Anatomy of a Trivial Patent
+Programmers are well aware that many of the existing software patents cover
+laughably obvious ideas. Yet the patent system’s defenders often argue that
+these ideas are nontrivial, obvious only in hindsight. And it is surprisingly
+difficult to defeat them in debate. Why is that?
+One reason is that any idea can be made to look complex when analyzed to
+death. Another reason is that these trivial ideas often look quite complex as
+described in the patents themselves. The patent system’s defenders can point 
to
+the complex description and say, “How can anything this complex be 
obvious?”
+I will use an example to show you how. Here’s claim number one from US
+patent number 5,963,916, applied for in October 1996:
+1. A method for enabling a remote user to preview a portion of a prerecorded 
music product from a network web site containing pre-selected
+portions of different pre-recorded music products, using a computer, a 
computer display and a telecommunications link between the remote user’s 
computer and the network web site, the method comprising the steps of:
+• using the remote user’s computer to establish a telecommunications
+link to the network web site wherein the network web site comprises
+(i) a central host server coupled to a communications network for retrieving 
and transmitting the pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded
+music product upon request by a remote user and (ii) a central storage device 
for storing pre-selected portions of a plurality of different
+pre-recorded music products;
+• transmitting user identification data from the remote user’s computer
+to the central host server thereby allowing the central host server to
+identify and track the user’s progress through the network web site;
+• choosing at least one pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded music
+products from the central host server;
+• receiving the chosen pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded products;
+and
+• interactively previewing the received chosen pre-selected portion of the
+pre-recorded music product.
+
+That sure looks like a complex system, right? Surely it took a real clever guy
+to think of this? No, but it took cleverness to make it seem so complex. 
Let’s
+analyze where the complexity comes from:
+1. A method for enabling a remote user to preview a portion of a prerecorded 
music product from a network web site containing pre-selected
+portions
+Copyright c 2006 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2006. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+136
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+That states the principal part of their idea. They put selections from certain
+pieces of music on a server so a user can listen to them.
+of different pre-recorded music products,
+
+This emphasizes their server stores selections from more than one piece of 
music.
+It is a basic principle of computer science is that if a computer can do a 
thing
+once, it can do that thing many times, on different data each time. Many 
patents
+pretend that applying this principle to a specific case makes an 
“invention.”
+using a computer, a computer display and a telecommunications link between the 
remote user’s computer and the network web site,
+
+This says they are using a server on a network.
+the method comprising the steps of:
+• using the remote user’s computer to establish a telecommunications
+link to the network web site
+
+This says that the user connects to the server over the network. (That’s the 
way
+one uses a server.)
+wherein the network web site comprises
+(i) a central host server coupled to a communications network
+
+This informs us that the server is on the net. (That is typical of servers.)
+for retrieving and transmitting the pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded
+music product upon request by a remote user
+
+This repeats the general idea stated in the first two lines.
+and (ii) a central storage device for storing pre-selected portions of a 
plurality of different
+pre-recorded music products;
+
+They have decided to put a hard disk (or equivalent) in their computer and 
store
+the music samples on that. Ever since around 1980, this has been the normal
+way to store anything on a computer for rapid access.
+Note how they emphasize once again the fact that they can store more than
+one selection on this disk. Of course, every file system will let you store 
more
+than one file.
+• transmitting user identification data from the remote user’s computer
+to the central host server thereby allowing the central host server to
+identify and track the user’s progress through the network web site;
+
+This says that they keep track of who you are and what you access—a common
+(though nasty) thing for web servers to do. I believe it was common already in
+1996.
+• choosing at least one pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded music
+products from the central host server;
+
+Chapter 23: Anatomy of a Trivial Patent
+
+137
+
+In other words, the user clicks to say which link to follow. That is typical 
for
+web servers; if they had found another way to do it, that might have been an
+invention.
+• receiving the chosen pre-selected portion of the pre-recorded products;
+and
+
+When you follow a link, your browser reads the contents. This is typical 
behavior
+for a web browser.
+• interactively previewing the received chosen pre-selected portion of the
+pre-recorded music product.
+
+This says that your browser plays the music for you. (That is what many
+browsers do, when you follow a link to an audio file.)
+Now you see how they padded this claim to make it into a complex idea: they
+combined their own idea (stated in two lines of text) with important aspects of
+what computers, networks, web servers, and web browsers do. This adds up to
+the so-called invention for which they received the patent.
+This example is typical of software patents. Even the occasional patent whose
+idea is nontrivial has the same sort of added complication.
+Now look at a subsequent claim:
+3. The method of [149]claim 1 wherein the central memory device comprises
+a plurality of compact disc-read only memory (CD-ROMs).
+
+What they are saying here is, “Even if you don’t think that claim 1 is 
really an
+invention, using CD-ROMs to store the data makes it an invention for sure. An
+average system designer would never have thought of storing data on a CD.”
+Now look at the next claim:
+4. The method of [150]claim 1 wherein the central memory device comprises
+a RAID array drive.
+
+A RAID array is a group of disks set up to work like one big disk, with the 
special
+feature that, even if one of the disks in the array has a failure and stops 
working,
+all the data are still available on the other disks in the group. Such arrays 
have
+been commercially available since long before 1996, and are a standard way of
+storing data for high availability. But these brilliant inventors have 
patented the
+use of a RAID array for this particular purpose.
+Trivial as it is, this patent would not necessarily be found legally invalid
+if there is a lawsuit about it. Not only the US Patent Office but the courts
+as well tend to apply a very low standard when judging whether a patent is
+“unobvious.” This patent might pass muster, according to them.
+What’s more, the courts are reluctant to overrule the Patent Office, so there
+is a better chance of getting a patent overturned if you can show a court 
prior art
+that the Patent Office did not consider. If the courts are willing to 
entertain a
+higher standard in judging unobviousness, it helps to save the prior art for 
them.
+Thus, the proposals to “make the system work better” by providing the 
Patent
+Office with a better database of prior art could instead make things worse.
+
+138
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+It is very hard to make a patent system behave reasonably; it is a complex
+bureaucracy and tends to follow its structural imperatives regardless of what
+it is “supposed” to do. The only practical way to get rid of the many 
obvious
+patents on software features and business practices is to get rid of all 
patents
+in those fields. Fortunately, that would be no loss: the unobvious patents in
+the software field do no good either. What software patents do is put software
+developers and users under threat.
+The patent system is supposed, intended, to promote progress, and those who
+benefit from software patents ask us to believe without question that they do
+have that effect. But programmers’ experience shows otherwise. New 
theoretical
+analysis shows that this is no paradox. (See http://researchoninnovation.
+org/patent.pdf.) There is no reason why society should expose software 
developers and users to the danger of software patents.
+
+Chapter 24: Software Patents and Literary Patents
+
+139
+
+24 Software Patents and Literary Patents
+When politicians consider the question of software patents, they are usually 
voting blind; not being programmers, they don’t understand what software 
patents
+really do. They often think patents are similar to copyright law (“except 
for some
+details”)—which is not the case. For instance, when I publicly asked 
Patrick
+Devedjian, then Minister for Industry in France, how France would vote on the
+issue of software patents, Devedjian responded with an impassioned defense of
+copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his role in the adoption of copyright.
+(The misleading term “intellectual property” promotes this confusion—one 
of
+the reasons it should never be used.)
+Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the 
disastrous effects of software patents. We can use Victor Hugo as an example to
+illustrate the difference.
+A novel and a modern complex program have certain points in common:
+each one is large, and implements many ideas in combination. So let’s follow 
the
+analogy, and suppose that patent law had been applied to novels in the 1800s;
+suppose that states such as France had permitted the patenting of literary 
ideas.
+How would this have affected Victor Hugo’s writing? How would the effects of
+literary patents compare with the effects of literary copyright?
+Consider Victor Hugo’s novel Les Mis´erables. Since he wrote it, the 
copyright
+belonged only to him. He did not have to fear that some stranger could sue him
+for copyright infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright
+covers only the details of a work of authorship, not the ideas embodied in 
them,
+and it only restricts copying. Hugo had not copied Les Mis´erables, so he was
+not in danger from copyright.
+Patents work differently. Patents cover ideas; each patent is a monopoly on
+practicing some idea, which is described in the patent itself. Here’s one 
example
+of a hypothetical literary patent:
+• Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a reader
+the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes
+bitter towards society and humankind.
+• Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said 
character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness of another.
+• Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein
+said character changes his name during the story.
+Copyright c 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://guardian.co.uk, on 23 June 2005.
+It was then titled “Patent Absurdity” and focused on the proposed European
+software patent directive. This version is part of Free Software, Free Society:
+Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+140
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Mis´erables was published, the 
novel
+would have conflicted with all three claims, since all these things happened to
+Jean Valjean in the novel. Victor Hugo could have been sued, and if sued, he
+would have lost. The novel could have been prohibited—in effect, 
censored—by
+the patent holder.
+Now consider this hypothetical literary patent:
+• Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a reader
+the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and 
subsequently changes his name.
+Les Mis´erables would have been prohibited by that patent too, because this 
description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean. And here’s another 
hypothetical
+patent:
+• Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a reader
+the concept of a character who finds moral redemption and then changes
+his name.
+Jean Valjean would have been forbidden by this patent too.
+All three patents would cover, and prohibit, the life story of this one 
character. They overlap, but they do not precisely duplicate each other, so 
they could
+all be valid simultaneously; all three patent holders could have sued Victor 
Hugo.
+Any one of them could have prohibited publication of Les Mis´erables.
+This patent also could have been violated:
+• Claim 1: a communication process that presents a character whose given
+name matches the last syllable of his family name.
+through the name “Jean Valjean,” but at least this patent would have been 
easy
+to avoid.
+You might think that these ideas are so simple that no patent office would
+have issued them. We programmers are often amazed by the simplicity of the
+ideas that real software patents cover—for instance, the European Patent 
Office
+has issued a patent on the progress bar, and a patent on accepting payment via
+credit cards. These patents would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.
+Other aspects of Les Mis´erables could also have run afoul of patents. For
+instance, there could have been a patent on a fictionalized portrayal of the 
Battle
+of Waterloo, or a patent on using Parisian slang in fiction. Two more lawsuits.
+In fact, there is no limit to the number of different patents that might have
+been applicable for suing the author of a work such as Les Mis´erables. All 
the
+patent holders would say they deserved a reward for the literary progress that
+their patented ideas represent, but these obstacles would not promote progress
+in literature, they would only obstruct it.
+However, a very broad patent could have made all these issues irrelevant.
+Imagine a patent with broad claims like these:
+
+Chapter 24: Software Patents and Literary Patents
+
+141
+
+• A communication process structured with narration that continues through
+many pages.
+• A narration structure sometimes resembling a fugue or improvisation.
+• Intrigue articulated around the confrontation of specific characters, each 
in
+turn setting traps for the others.
+• Narration that presents many layers of society.
+• Narration that shows the wheels of hidden conspiracy.
+Who would the patent holders have been? They could have been other novelists,
+perhaps Dumas or Balzac, who had written such novels—but not necessarily. It
+isn’t required to write a program to patent a software idea, so if our 
hypothetical
+literary patents follow the real patent system, these patent holders would not
+have had to write novels, or stories, or anything—except patent applications.
+Patent parasite companies, businesses that produce nothing except threats and
+lawsuits, are booming nowadays.
+Given these broad patents, Victor Hugo would not have reached the point of
+asking what patents might get him sued for using the character of Jean Valjean,
+because he could not even have considered writing a novel of this kind.
+This analogy can help nonprogrammers see what software patents do. Software 
patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in a word processor,
+or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet. Patents cover algorithms that
+programs need to use. Patents cover aspects of file formats, such as 
Microsoft’s
+OOXML format. MPEG 2 video format is covered by 39 different US patents.
+Just as one novel could run afoul of many different literary patents at once,
+one program can be prohibited by many different patents at once. It is so
+much work to identify all the patents that appear to apply to a large program
+that only one such study has been done. A 2004 study of Linux, the kernel
+of the GNU/Linux operating system, found 283 different US software patents
+that seemed to cover it. That is to say, each of these 283 different patents
+forbids some computational process found somewhere in the thousands of pages
+of source code of Linux. At the time, Linux was around 1 percent of the whole
+GNU/Linux system. How many patents might there be that a distributor of the
+whole system could be sued under?
+The way to prevent software patents from bollixing software development is
+simple: don’t authorize them. This ought to be easy, since most patent laws
+have provisions against software patents. They typically say that “software 
per
+se” cannot be patented. But patent offices around the world are trying to 
twist
+the words and issuing patents on the ideas implemented in programs. Unless
+this is blocked, the result will be to put all software developers in danger.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+143
+
+25 The Danger of Software Patents
+This is an unedited transcript of the talk presented by Richard Stallman
+on 8 October 2009 at Victoria University of Wellington, in Wellington, New
+Zealand.
+
+I’m most known for starting the free software movement and leading 
development
+of the GNU operating system—although most of the people who use the system
+mistakenly believe it’s Linux and think it was started by somebody else a 
decade
+later. But I’m not going to be speaking about any of that today. I’m here 
to
+talk about a legal danger to all software developers, distributors, and users: 
the
+danger of patents—on computational ideas, computational techniques, an idea
+for something you can do on a computer.
+Now, to understand this issue, the first thing you need to realize is that 
patent
+law has nothing to do with copyright law—they’re totally different. 
Whatever
+you learn about one of them, you can be sure it doesn’t apply to the other.
+So, for example, any time a person makes a statement about “intellectual
+property,” that’s spreading confusion, because it’s lumping together not 
only
+these two laws but also at least a dozen others. They’re all different, and 
the
+result is any statement which purports to be about “intellectual property” 
is pure
+confusion—either the person making the statement is confused, or the person 
is
+trying to confuse others. But either way, whether it’s accidental or 
malicious,
+it’s confusion.
+Protect yourself from this confusion by rejecting any statement which makes
+use of that term. The only way to make thoughtful comments and think clear
+thoughts about any one of these laws is to distinguish it first from all the 
others,
+and talk or think about one particular law, so that we can understand what
+it actually does and then form conclusions about it. So I’ll be talking about
+patent law, and what happens in those countries which have allowed patent law
+to restrict software.
+So, what does a patent do? A patent is an explicit, government-issued
+monopoly on using a certain idea. In the patent there’s a part called the 
claims,
+which describe exactly what you’re not allowed to do (although they’re 
written
+in a way you probably can’t understand). It’s a struggle to figure out 
what those
+prohibitions actually mean, and they may go on for many pages of fine print.
+So the patent typically lasts for 20 years, which is a fairly long time in our
+field. Twenty years ago there was no World Wide Web—a tremendous amount
+of the use of computers goes on in an area which wasn’t even possible to 
propose
+Copyright c 2009 Richard Stallman
+This transcript was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2009. This
+version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M.
+Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+This chapter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 
United
+States License. To view a copy of this license, visit 
http://creativecommons.org/
+licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street,
+Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.
+
+144
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+20 years ago. So of course everything that people do on it is something 
that’s
+new since 20 years ago—at least in some aspect it is new. So if patents had 
been
+applied for we’d be prohibited from doing all of it, and we may be prohibited
+from doing all of it in countries that have been foolish enough to have such a
+policy.
+Most of the time, when people describe the function of the patent system,
+they have a vested interest in the system. They may be patent lawyers, or
+they may work in the Patent Office, or they may be in the patent office of a
+megacorporation, so they want you to like the system.
+The Economist once referred to the patent system as “a time-consuming
+lottery.” If you’ve ever seen publicity for a lottery, you understand how 
it works:
+they dwell on the very unlikely probability of winning, and they don’t talk
+about the overwhelming likelihood of losing. In this way, they intentionally 
and
+systematically present a biased picture of what’s likely to happen to you, 
without
+actually lying about any particular fact.
+It’s the same way for the publicity for the patent system: they talk about
+what it’s like to walk down the street with a patent in your pocket—or 
first of
+all, what it’s like to get a patent, then what it’s like to have a patent 
in your
+pocket, and every so often you can pull it out and point it at somebody and 
say,
+“Give me your money.”
+To compensate for their bias, I’m going to describe it from the other side,
+the victim side—what it’s like for people who want to develop or 
distribute or
+run software. You have to worry that any day someone might walk up to you
+and point a patent at you and say, “Give me your money.”
+If you want to develop software in a country that allows software patents,
+and you want to work with patent law, what will you have to do?
+You could try to make a list of all the ideas that one might be able to find in
+the program that you’re about to write, aside from the fact that you don’t 
know
+that when you start writing the program. [But] even after you finish writing 
the
+program you wouldn’t be able to make such a list.
+The reason is. . . in the process you conceived of it in one particular way—
+you’ve got a mental structure to apply to your design. And because of that, 
it will
+block you from seeing other structures that somebody might use to understand
+the same program—because you’re not coming to it fresh; you already 
designed
+it with one structure in mind. Someone else who sees it for the first time 
might
+see a different structure, which involves different ideas, and it would be 
hard for
+you to see what those other ideas are. But nonetheless they’re implemented in
+your program, and those patents could prohibit your program, if those ideas are
+patented.
+For instance, suppose there were graphical-idea patents and you wanted to
+draw a square. Well, you would realize that if there was a patent on a bottom
+edge, it would prohibit your square. You could put “bottom edge” on the 
list of
+all ideas implemented in your drawing. But you might not realize that somebody
+else with a patent on bottom corners could sue you easily also, because he 
could
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+145
+
+take your drawing and turn it by 45 degrees. And now your square is like this,
+and it has a bottom corner.
+So you couldn’t make a list of all the ideas which, if patented, could 
prohibit
+your program.
+What you might try to do is find out all the ideas that are patented that
+might be in your program. Now you can’t do that actually, because patent
+applications are kept secret for at least 18 months; and the result is the 
Patent
+Office could be considering now whether to issue a patent, and they won’t 
tell
+you. And this is not just an academic, theoretical possibility.
+For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was written, a program for
+compressing files using the data compression algorithm, and at that time there
+was no patent on that algorithm for compressing files. The author got the
+algorithm from an article in a journal. That was when we thought that the
+purpose of computer science journals was to publish algorithms so people could
+use them.
+He wrote this program, he released it, and in 1985 a patent was issued on that
+algorithm. But the patent holder was cunning and didn’t immediately go around
+telling people to stop using it. The patent holder figured, “Let’s let 
everybody
+dig their grave deeper.” A few years later they started threatening people; 
it
+became clear we couldn’t use Compress, so I asked for people to suggest other
+algorithms we could use for compressing files.
+And somebody wrote and said, “I developed another data compression algorithm 
that works better, I’ve written a program, I’d like to give it to you.” So
+we got ready to release it, and a week before it was ready to be released, I 
read
+in the New York Times weekly patent column, which I rarely saw—it’s a 
couple
+of times a year I might see it—but just by luck I saw that someone had gotten
+a patent for “inventing a new method of compressing data.” And so I said we
+had better look at this, and sure enough it covered the program we were about
+to release. But it could have been worse: the patent could have been issued a
+year later, or two years later, or three years later, or five years later.
+Anyway, someone else came up with another, even better compression algorithm, 
which was used in the program gzip, and just about everybody who
+wanted to compress files switched to gzip, so it sounds like a happy ending. 
But
+you’ll hear more later. It’s not entirely so happy.
+So, you can’t find out about the patents that are being considered even
+though they may prohibit your work once they come out, but you can find out
+about the already issued patents. They’re all published by the Patent Office.
+The problem is you can’t read them all, because there are too many of them.
+In the US I believe there are hundreds of thousands of software patents;
+keeping track of them would be a tremendous job. So you’re going to have to
+search for relevant patents. And you’ll find a lot of relevant patents, but 
you
+won’t necessarily find them all.
+For instance, in the 80s and 90s, there was a patent on “natural order 
recalculation” in spreadsheets. Somebody once asked me for a copy of it, so I 
looked
+in our computer file which lists the patent numbers. And then I pulled out the
+
+146
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+drawer to get the paper copy of this patent and xeroxed it and sent it to him.
+And when he got it, he said, “I think you sent me the wrong patent. This is
+something about compilers.” So I thought maybe our file has the wrong number
+in it. I looked in it again, and sure enough it said, “A method for 
compiling formulas into object code.” So I started to read it to see if it 
was indeed the wrong
+patent. I read the claims, and sure enough it was the natural order 
recalculation
+patent, but it didn’t use those terms. It didn’t use the term 
“spreadsheet.” In
+fact, what the patent prohibited was dozens of different ways of implementing
+topological sort—all the ways they could think of. But I don’t think it 
used the
+term “topological sort.”
+So if you were writing a spreadsheet and you tried to find relevant patents by
+searching, you might have found a lot of patents. But you wouldn’t have found
+this one until you told somebody, “Oh, I’m working on a spreadsheet,” 
and he
+said, “Oh, did you know those other companies that are making spreadsheets
+are getting sued?” Then you would have found out.
+Well, you can’t find all the patents by searching, but you can find a lot of
+them. And then you’ve got to figure out what they mean, which is hard, 
because
+patents are written in tortuous legal language which is very hard to understand
+the real meaning of. So you’re going to have to spend a lot of time talking 
with
+an expensive lawyer explaining what you want to do in order to find out from
+the lawyer whether you’re allowed to do it.
+Even the patent holders often can’t recognize just what their patents mean.
+For instance, there’s somebody named Paul Heckel who released a program for
+displaying a lot of data on a small screen, and based on a couple of the ideas 
in
+that program he got a couple of patents.
+I once tried to find a simple way to describe what claim 1 of one of those
+patents covered. I found that I couldn’t find any simpler way of saying it 
than
+what was in the patent itself; and that sentence, I couldn’t manage to keep 
it
+all in my mind at once, no matter how hard I tried.
+And Heckel couldn’t follow it either, because when he saw HyperCard, all he
+noticed was it was nothing like his program. It didn’t occur to him that the 
way
+his patent was written it might prohibit HyperCard; but his lawyer had that
+idea, so he threatened Apple. And then he threatened Apple’s customers, and
+eventually Apple made a settlement with him which is secret, so we don’t know
+who really won. And this is just an illustration of how hard it is for anybody 
to
+understand what a patent does or doesn’t prohibit.
+In fact, I once gave this speech and Heckel was in the audience. And at this
+point he jumped up and said, “That’s not true, I just didn’t know the 
scope of
+my protection.” And I said, “Yeah, that’s what I said,” at which point 
he sat
+down and that was the end of my experience being heckled by Heckel. If I had
+said no, he probably would have found a way to argue with me.
+Anyway, after a long, expensive conversation with a lawyer, the lawyer will
+give you an answer like this:
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+147
+
+If you do something in this area, you’re almost certain to lose a lawsuit;
+if you do something in this area, there’s a considerable chance of losing a
+lawsuit; and if you really want to be safe you’ve got to stay out of this 
area.
+But there’s a sizeable element of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.
+
+So now that you have clear, predictable rules for doing business, what are
+you actually going to do? Well, there are three things that you could do to 
deal
+with the issue of any particular patent. One is to avoid it, another is to get 
a
+license for it, and the third is to invalidate it. So I’ll talk about these 
one by
+one.
+First, there’s the possibility of avoiding the patent, which means, don’t 
implement what it prohibits. Of course, if it’s hard to tell what it 
prohibits, it
+might be hard to tell what would suffice to avoid it.
+A couple of years ago Kodak sued Sun [for] using a patent for something
+having to do with object-oriented programming, and Sun didn’t think it was
+infringing that patent. But the court decided it was; and when other people
+look at that patent they haven’t the faintest idea whether that decision was
+right or not. No one can tell what that patent does or doesn’t cover, but Sun
+had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of violating a completely
+incomprehensible law.
+Sometimes you can tell what you need to avoid, and sometimes what you
+need to avoid is an algorithm.
+For instance, I saw a patent for something like the fast Fourier transform, but
+it ran twice as fast. Well, if the ordinary FFT is fast enough for your 
application
+then that’s an easy way to avoid this other one. And most of the time that 
would
+work. Once in a while you might be trying to do something where it runs doing
+FFT all the time, and it’s just barely fast enough using the faster 
algorithm.
+And then you can’t avoid it, although maybe you could wait a couple of years
+for a faster computer. But that’s going to be rare. Most of the time that 
patent
+will to be easy to avoid.
+On the other hand, a patent on an algorithm may be impossible to avoid.
+Consider the LZW data compression algorithm. Well, as I explained, we found
+a better data compression algorithm, and everybody who wanted to compress
+files switched to the program gzip which used the better algorithm. And the
+reason is, if you just want to compress the file and uncompress it later, you 
can
+tell people to use this program to uncompress it; then you can use any program
+with any algorithm, and you only care how well it works.
+But LZW is used for other things, too; for instance the PostScript language
+specifies operators for LZW compression and LZW uncompression. It’s no use
+having another, better algorithm because it makes a different format of data.
+They’re not interoperable. If you compress it with the gzip algorithm, you
+won’t be able to uncompress it using LZW. So no matter how good your other
+algorithm is, and no matter what it is, it just doesn’t enable you to 
implement
+PostScript according to the specs.
+But I noticed that users rarely ask their printers to compress things. 
Generally the only thing they want their printers to do is to uncompress; and I 
also
+
+148
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+noticed that both of the patents on the LZW algorithm were written in such a
+way that if your system can only uncompress, it’s not forbidden. These 
patents
+were written so that they covered compression, and they had other claims 
covering both compression and uncompression; but there was no claim covering 
only
+uncompression. So I realized that if we implement only the uncompression for
+LZW, we would be safe. And although it would not satisfy the specification, it
+would please the users sufficiently; it would do what they actually needed. So
+that’s how we barely squeaked by avoiding the two patents.
+Now there is gif format, for images. That uses the LZW algorithm also. It
+didn’t take long for people to define another image format, called png, which
+stands for “Png’s Not Gif.” I think it uses the gzip algorithm. And we 
started
+saying to people, “Don’t use gif format, it’s dangerous. Switch to 
png.” And the
+users said, “Well, maybe some day, but the browsers don’t implement it 
yet,”
+and the browser developers said, “We may implement it someday, but there’s
+not much demand from users.”
+Well, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on—gif was a de facto standard. In
+effect, asking people to switch to a different format, instead of their de 
facto
+standard, is like asking everyone in New Zealand to speak Hungarian. People
+will say, “Well, yeah, I’ll learn to speak it after everyone else does.” 
And so
+we never succeeded in asking people to stop using gif, even though one of those
+patent holders was going around to operators of web sites, threatening to sue
+them unless they could prove that all of the gifs on the site were made with
+authorized, licensed software.
+So gif was a dangerous trap for a large part of our community. We thought
+we had an alternative to gif format, namely jpeg, but then somebody said, “I
+was just looking through my portfolio of patents”—I think it was somebody
+that just bought patents and used them to threaten people—and he said, “and
+I found that one of them covers jpeg format.”
+Well, jpeg was not a de facto standard, it’s an official standard, issued by 
a
+standards committee; and the committee had a lawyer too. Their lawyer said
+he didn’t think that this patent actually covered jpeg format.
+So who’s right? Well, this patent holder sued a bunch of companies, and
+if there was a decision, it would have said who was right. But I haven’t 
heard
+about a decision; I’m not sure if there ever was one. I think they settled, 
and the
+settlement is almost certainly secret, which means that it didn’t tell us 
anything
+about who’s right.
+These are fairly lightweight cases: one patent on jpeg, two patents on the
+LZW algorithm used in gif. Now you might wonder how come there are two
+patents on the same algorithm? It’s not supposed to happen, but it did. And
+the reason is that the patent examiners can’t possibly take the time to study
+every pair of things they might need to study and compare, because they’re 
not
+allowed to take that much time. And because algorithms are just mathematics,
+there’s no way you can narrow down which applications and patents you need
+to compare.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+149
+
+You see, in physical engineering fields, they can use the physical nature of
+what’s going on to narrow things down. For instance, in chemical engineering,
+they can say, “What are the substances going in? What are the substances
+coming out?” If two different [patent] applications are different in that 
way,
+then they’re not the same process so you don’t need to worry. But the same
+math can be represented in ways that can look very different, and until you 
study
+them both together, you don’t realize they’re talking about the same 
thing. And,
+because of this, it’s quite common to see the same thing get patented 
multiple
+times [in software].
+Remember that program that was killed by a patent before we released it?
+Well, that algorithm got patented twice also. In one little field we’ve seen 
it
+happen in two cases that we ran into—the same algorithm being patented twice.
+Well, I think my explanation tells you why that happens.
+But one or two patents is a lightweight case. What about mpeg2, the video
+format? I saw a list of over 70 patents covering that, and the negotiations
+to arrange a way for somebody to license all those patents took longer than
+developing the standard itself. The jpeg committee wanted to develop a 
followon standard, and they gave up. They said there were too many patents; 
there
+was no way to do it.
+Sometimes it’s a feature that’s patented, and the only way to avoid that
+patent is not to implement that feature. For instance, the users of the word
+processor Xywrite once got a downgrade in the mail, which removed a feature.
+The feature was that you could define a list of abbreviations. For instance, 
if you
+define “exp” as an abbreviation for “experiment,” then if you type 
“exp-space”
+or “exp-comma,” the “exp” would change automatically to 
“experiment.”
+Then somebody who had a patent on this feature threatened them, and they
+concluded that the only thing they could do was to take the feature out. And
+so they sent all the users a downgrade.
+But they also contacted me, because my Emacs editor had a feature like that
+starting from the late 70s. And it was described in the Emacs manual, so they
+thought I might be able to help them invalidate that patent. Well, I’m happy
+to know I’ve had at least one patentable idea in my life, but I’m unhappy 
that
+someone else patented it.
+Fortunately, in fact, that patent was eventually invalidated, and partly on the
+strength of the fact that I had published using it earlier. But in the meantime
+they had had to remove this feature.
+Now, to remove one or two features may not be a disaster. But when you
+have to remove 50 features, you could do it, but people are likely to say, 
“This
+program’s no good; it’s missing all the features I want.” So it may not 
be a
+solution. And sometimes a patent is so broad that it wipes out an entire field,
+like the patent on public-key encryption, which in fact put public-key 
encryption
+basically off limits for about ten years.
+So that’s the option of avoiding the patent—often possible, but sometimes
+not, and there’s a limit to how many patents you can avoid.
+What about the next possibility, of getting a license for the patent?
+
+150
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Well, the patent holder may not offer you a license. It’s entirely up to
+him. He could say, “I just want to shut you down.” I once got a letter from
+somebody whose family business was making casino games, which were of course
+computerized, and he had been threatened by a patent holder who wanted to
+make his business shut down. He sent me the patent. Claim 1 was something like
+“a network with a multiplicity of computers, in which each computer supports
+a multiplicity of games, and allows a multiplicity of game sessions at the same
+time.”
+Now, I’m sure in the 1980s there was a university that set up a room with
+a network of workstations, and each workstation had some kind of windowing
+facility. All they had to do was to install multiple games and it would be 
possible
+to display multiple game sessions at once. This is so trivial and uninteresting
+that nobody would have bothered to publish an article about doing it. No one
+would have been interested in publishing an article about doing it, but it was
+worth patenting it. If it had occurred to you that you could get a monopoly on
+this trivial thing, then you could shut down your competitors with it.
+But why does the Patent Office issue so many patents that seem absurd and
+trivial to us?
+It’s not because the patent examiners are stupid, it’s because they’re 
following a system, and the system has rules, and the rules lead to this result.
+You see, if somebody has made a machine that does something once, and
+somebody else designs a machine that will do the same thing, but N times, for
+us that’s a for-loop, but for the Patent Office that’s an invention. If 
there are
+machines that can do A, and there are machines that can do B, and somebody
+designs a machine that can do A or B, for us that’s an if-then-else 
statement,
+but for the Patent Office that’s an invention. So they have very low 
standards,
+and they follow those standards; and the result is patents that look absurd and
+trivial to us. Whether they’re legally valid I can’t say. But every 
programmer
+who sees them laughs.
+In any case, I was unable to suggest anything he could do to help himself,
+and he had to shut down his business. But most patent holders will offer you a
+license. It’s likely to be rather expensive.
+But there are some software developers that find it particularly easy to get
+licenses, most of the time. Those are the megacorporations. In any field the
+megacorporations generally own about half the patents, and they cross-license
+each other, and they can make anybody else cross-license if he’s really 
producing
+anything. The result is that they end up painlessly with licenses for almost 
all
+the patents.
+IBM wrote an article in its house magazine, Think magazine—I think it’s
+issue 5, 1990—about the benefit IBM got from its almost 9,000 US patents at
+the time (now it’s up to 45,000 or more). They said that one of the benefits 
was
+that they collected money, but the main benefit, which they said was perhaps
+an order of magnitude greater, was “getting access to the patents of 
others,”
+namely cross-licensing.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+151
+
+What this means is since IBM, with so many patents, can make almost
+everybody give them a cross-license, IBM avoids almost all the grief that the
+patent system would have inflicted on anybody else. So that’s why IBM wants
+software patents. That’s why the megacorporations in general want software
+patents, because they know that by cross-licensing, they will have a sort of
+exclusive club on top of a mountain peak. And all the rest of us will be down
+here, and there’s no way we can get up there. You know, if you’re a 
genius, you
+might start up a small company and get some patents, but you’ll never get 
into
+IBM’s league, no matter what you do.
+Now a lot of companies tell their employees, “Get us patents so we can defend
+ourselves” and they mean, “use them to try to get cross-licensing,” but 
it just
+doesn’t work well. It’s not an effective strategy if you’ve got a small 
number of
+patents.
+Suppose you’ve got three patents. One points there, one points there, and
+one points there, and somebody over there points a patent at you. Well, your
+three patents don’t help you at all, because none of them points at him. On
+the other hand, sooner or later, somebody in the company is going to notice
+that this patent is actually pointing at some people, and [the company] could
+threaten them and squeeze money out of them—never mind that those people
+didn’t attack this company.
+So if your employer says to you, “We need some patents to defend ourselves,
+so help us get patents,” I recommend this response:
+Boss, I trust you and I’m sure you would only use those patents to defend
+the company if it’s attacked. But I don’t know who’s going to be the CEO
+of this company in five years. For all I know, it might get acquired by
+Microsoft. So I really can’t trust the company’s word to only use these
+patents for defense unless I get it in writing. Please put it in writing that
+any patents I provide for the company will only be used for self-defense and
+collective security, and not for repression, and then I’ll be able to get 
patents
+for the company with a clean conscience.
+
+It would be most interesting to raise this not just in private with your boss,
+but also on the company’s discussion list.
+The other thing that could happen is that the company could fail and its
+assets could be auctioned off, including the patents; and the patents will be
+bought by someone who means to use them to do something nasty.
+This cross-licensing practice is very important to understand, because this
+is what punctures the argument of the software patent advocates who say that
+software patents are needed to protect the starving genius. They give you a
+scenario which is a series of unlikelihoods.
+So let’s look at it. According to this scenario, there’s a brilliant 
designer of
+whatever, who’s been working for years by himself in his attic coming up with
+a better way to do whatever it is. And now that it’s ready, he wants to start
+a business and mass-produce this thing; and because his idea is so good his
+company will inevitably succeed— except for one thing: the big companies will
+compete with him and take all his market the away. And because of this, his
+business will almost certainly fail, and then he will starve.
+
+152
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Well, let’s look at all the unlikely assumptions here.
+First of all, that he comes up with this idea working by himself. That’s not
+very likely. In a high-tech field, most progress is made by people working in a
+field, doing things and talking with people in the field. But I wouldn’t say 
it’s
+impossible, not that one thing by itself.
+But anyway the next supposition is that he’s going to start a business and
+that it’s going to succeed. Well, just because he’s a brilliant engineer 
doesn’t
+mean that he’s any good at running a business. Most new businesses fail; more
+than 95 percent of them, I think, fail within a few years. So that’s probably
+what’s going to happen to him, no matter what.
+Ok, let’s assume that in addition to being a brilliant engineer who came up
+with something great by himself, he’s also talented at running businesses. 
If he
+has a knack for running businesses, then maybe his business won’t fail. After
+all, not all new businesses fail, there are a certain few that succeed. Well, 
if
+he understands business, then instead of trying to go head to head with large
+companies, he might try to do things that small companies are better at and
+have a better chance of succeeding. He might succeed. But let’s suppose it 
fails
+anyway. If he’s so brilliant and has a knack for running businesses, I’m 
sure he
+won’t starve, because somebody will want to give him a job.
+So a series of unlikelihoods—it’s not a very plausible scenario. But 
let’s look
+at it anyway.
+Because where they go from there is to say the patent system will “protect”
+our starving genius, because he can get a patent on this technique. And then
+when IBM wants to compete with him, he says, “IBM, you can’t compete with
+me, because I’ve got this patent,” and IBM says, “Oh, no, not again!”
+Well, here’s what really happens.
+IBM says, “Oh, how nice, you have a patent. Well, we have this patent,
+and this patent, and this patent, and this patent, and this patent, all of 
which
+cover other ideas implemented in your product, and if you think you can fight
+us on all those, we’ll pull out some more. So let’s sign a cross-license 
agreement,
+and that way nobody will get hurt.” Now since we’ve assumed that our genius
+understands business, he’s going to realize that he has no choice. He’s 
going
+to sign the cross-license agreement, as just about everybody does when IBM
+demands it. And then this means that IBM will get “access” to his patent,
+meaning IBM would be free to compete with him just as if there were no patents,
+which means that the supposed benefit that they claim he would get by having
+this patent is not real. He won’t get this benefit.
+The patent might “protect” him from competition from you or me, but not
+from IBM—not from the very megacorporations which the scenario says are
+the threat to him. You know in advance that there’s got to be a flaw in this
+reasoning when people who are lobbyists for megacorporations recommend a
+policy supposedly because it’s going to protect their small competitors from
+them. If it really were going to do that, they wouldn’t be in favor of it. 
But this
+explains why [software patents] won’t do it.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+153
+
+Even IBM can’t always do this, because there are companies that we refer
+to as patent trolls or patent parasites, and their only business is using 
patents
+to squeeze money out of people who really make something.
+Patent lawyers tell us that it’s really wonderful to have patents in your 
field,
+but they don’t have patents in their field. There are no patents on how to 
send
+or write a threatening letter, no patents on how to file a lawsuit, and no 
patents
+on how to persuade a judge or jury, so even IBM can’t make the patent trolls
+cross-license. But IBM figures, “Our competition will have to pay them too; 
this
+is just part of the cost of doing business, and we can live with it.” IBM 
and the
+other megacorporations figure that the general dominion over all activity that
+they get from their patents is good for them, and paying off the trolls they 
can
+live with. So that’s why they want software patents.
+There are also certain software developers who find it particularly difficult 
to
+get a patent license, and those are the developers of free software. The reason
+is that the usual patent license has conditions we can’t possibly fulfill, 
because
+usual patent licenses demand a payment per copy. But when software gives users
+the freedom to distribute and make more copies, we have no way to count the
+copies that exist.
+If someone offered me a patent license for a payment of one-millionth of a
+dollar per copy, the total amount of money I’d have to pay maybe is in my 
pocket
+now. Maybe it’s $50, but I don’t know if it’s $50, or $49, or what, 
because there’s
+no way I can count the copies that people have made.
+A patent holder doesn’t have to demand a payment per copy; a patent holder
+could offer you a license for a single lump sum, but those lump sums tend to be
+big, like US$100,000.
+And the reason that we’ve been able to develop so much freedom-respecting
+software is [that] we can develop software without money, but we can’t pay a
+lot of money without money. If we’re forced to pay for the privilege of 
writing
+software for the public, we won’t be able to do it very much.
+That’s the possibility of getting a license for the patent. The other 
possibility
+is to invalidate the patent. If the country considers software patents to be
+basically valid, and allowed, the only question is whether that particular 
patent
+meets the criteria. It’s only useful to go to court if you’ve got an 
argument to
+make that might prevail.
+What would that argument be? You have to find evidence that, years ago,
+before the patent was applied for, people knew about the same idea. And you’d
+have to find things today that demonstrate that they knew about it publicly at
+that time. So the dice were cast years ago, and if they came up favorably for
+you, and if you can prove that fact today, then you have an argument to use to
+try to invalidate the patent. And it might work.
+It might cost you a lot of money to go through this case, and as a result,
+a probably invalid patent is a very frightening weapon to be threatened with if
+you don’t have a lot of money. There are people who can’t afford to defend 
their
+rights—lots of them. The ones who can afford it are the exception.
+
+154
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+These are the three things that you might be able to do about each patent
+that prohibits something in your program. The thing is, whether each one is
+possible depends on different details of the circumstances, so some of the 
time,
+none of them is possible; and when that happens, your project is dead.
+But lawyers in most countries tell us, “Don’t try to find the patents in 
advance,” and the reason is that the penalty for infringement is bigger if 
you knew
+about the patent. So what they tell you is “Keep your eyes shut. Don’t try
+to find out about the patents, just go blindly taking your design decisions, 
and
+hope.”
+And of course, with each single design decision, you probably don’t step on
+a patent. Probably nothing happens to you. But there are so many steps you
+have to take to get across the minefield, it’s very unlikely you will get 
through
+safely. And of course, the patent holders don’t all show up at the same 
time, so
+you don’t know how many there are going to be.
+The patent holder of the natural order recalculation patent was demanding
+5 percent of the gross sales of every spreadsheet. You could imagine paying for
+a few such licenses, but what happens when patent holder number 20 comes
+along, and wants you to pay out the last remaining 5 percent? And then what
+happens when patent holder number 21 comes along?
+People in business say that this scenario is amusing but absurd, because your
+business would fail long before you got there. They told me that two or three
+such licenses would make your business fail. So you’d never get to 20. They
+show up one by one, so you never know how many more there are going to be.
+Software patents are a mess. They’re a mess for software developers, but in
+addition they’re a restriction on every computer user because software 
patents
+restrict what you can do on your computer.
+This is very different from patents, for instance, on automobile engines.
+These only restrict companies that make cars; they don’t restrict you and me.
+But software patents do restrict you and me, and everybody who uses computers. 
So we can’t think of them in purely economic terms; we can’t judge this
+issue purely in economic terms. There’s something more important at stake.
+But even in economic terms, the system is self-defeating, because its purpose
+is supposed to be to promote progress. Supposedly by creating this artificial
+incentive for people to publish ideas, it’s going to help the field 
progress. But all
+it does is the exact opposite, because the big job in software is not coming up
+with ideas, it’s implementing thousands of ideas together in one program. And
+software patents obstruct that, so they’re economically self-defeating.
+And there’s even economic research showing that this is so—showing how in
+a field with a lot of incremental innovation, a patent system can actually 
reduce
+investment in R & D. And of course, it also obstructs development in other
+ways. So even if we ignore the injustice of software patents, even if we were
+to look at it in the narrow economic terms that are usually proposed, it’s 
still
+harmful.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+155
+
+People sometimes respond by saying that “People in other fields have been
+living with patents for decades, and they’ve gotten used to it, so why 
should you
+be an exception?”
+Now, that question has an absurd assumption. It’s like saying, “Other 
people
+get cancer, why shouldn’t you?” I think every time someone doesn’t get 
cancer,
+that’s good, regardless of what happened to the others. That question is 
absurd
+because of its presupposition that somehow we all have a duty to suffer the 
harm
+done by patents.
+But there is a sensible question buried inside it, and that sensible question
+is “What differences are there between various fields that might affect what 
is
+good or bad patent policy in those fields?”
+There is an important basic difference between fields in regard to how many
+patents are likely to prohibit or cover parts of any one product.
+Now we have a naive idea in our minds which I’m trying to get rid of, because
+it’s not true. And it’s that on any one product there is one patent, and 
that
+patent covers the overall design of that product. So if you design a new 
product,
+it can’t be patented already, and you will have an opportunity to get “the 
patent”
+on that product.
+That’s not how things work. In the 1800s, maybe they did, but not now. In
+fact, fields fall on a spectrum of how many patents [there are] per product. 
The
+beginning of the spectrum is one, but no field is like that today; fields are 
at
+various places on this spectrum.
+The field that’s closest to that is pharmaceuticals. A few decades ago, there
+really was one patent per pharmaceutical, at least at any time, because the
+patent covered the entire chemical formula of that one particular substance.
+Back then, if you developed a new drug, you could be sure it wasn’t already
+patented by somebody else and you could get the one patent on that drug.
+But that’s not how it works now. Now there are broader patents, so now you
+could develop a new drug, and you’re not allowed to make it because somebody
+has a broader patent which covers it already.
+And there might even be a few such patents covering your new drug 
simultaneously, but there won’t be hundreds. The reason is, our ability to do
+biochemical engineering is so limited that nobody knows how to combine so
+many ideas to make something that’s useful in medicine. If you can combine a
+couple of them you’re doing pretty well at our level of knowledge. But other
+fields involve combining more ideas to make one thing.
+At the other end of the spectrum is software, where we can combine more
+ideas into one usable design than anybody else, because our field is basically
+easier than all other fields. I’m presuming that the intelligence of people 
in our
+field is the same as that of people in physical engineering. It’s not that 
we’re
+fundamentally better than they are; it’s that our field is fundamentally 
easier,
+because we’re working with mathematics.
+A program is made out of mathematical components, which have a definition, 
whereas physical objects don’t have a definition. The matter does what it
+does, so through the perversity of matter, your design may not work the way it
+
+156
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+“should” have worked. And that’s just tough. You can’t say that the 
matter
+has a bug in it, and the physical universe should get fixed. [Whereas] we 
[programmers] can make a castle that rests on a mathematically thin line, and it
+stays up because nothing weighs anything.
+There’re so many complications you have to cope with in physical engineering
+that we don’t have to worry about.
+For instance, when I put an if-statement inside of a while-loop,
+• I don’t have to worry that if this while-loop repeats at the wrong rate, 
the
+if-statement might start to vibrate and it might resonate and crack;
+• I don’t have to worry that if it resonates much faster—you know, 
millions
+of times per second—that it might generate radio frequency signals that
+might induce wrong values in other parts of the program;
+• I don’t have to worry that corrosive fluids from the environment might 
seep
+in between the if-statement and the while-statement and start eating away
+at them until the signals don’t pass anymore;
+• I don’t have to worry about how the heat generated by my if-statement is
+going to get out through the while-statement so that it doesn’t make the
+if-statement burn out; and
+• I don’t have to worry about how I would take out the broken if-statement
+if it does crack, burn, or corrode, and replace it with another if-statement
+to make the program run again.
+For that matter, I don’t have to worry about how I’m going to insert the
+if-statement inside the while-statement every time I produce a copy of the
+program. I don’t have to design a factory to make copies of my program, 
because
+there are various general commands that will make copies of anything.
+If I want to make copies on CD, I just have to write a master; and there’s 
one
+program I can [use to] make a master out of anything, write any data I want.
+I can make a master CD and write it and send it off to a factory, and they’ll
+duplicate whatever I send them. I don’t have to design a different factory 
for
+each thing I want to duplicate.
+Very often with physical engineering you have to do that; you have to design
+products for manufacturability. Designing the factory may even be a bigger job
+than designing the product, and then you may have to spend millions of dollars
+to build the factory. So with all of this trouble, you’re not going to be 
able to
+put together so many different ideas in one product and have it work.
+A physical design with a million nonrepeating different design elements is
+a gigantic project. A program with a million different design elements, 
that’s
+nothing. It’s a few hundred thousand lines of code, and a few people will 
write
+that in a few years, so it’s not a big deal. So the result is that the 
patent system
+weighs proportionately heavier on us than it does on people in any other field
+who are being held back by the perversity of matter.
+A lawyer did a study of one particular large program, namely the kernel
+Linux, which is used together with the GNU operating system that I launched.
+
+Chapter 25: The Danger of Software Patents
+
+157
+
+This was five years ago now; he found 283 different US patents, each of which
+appeared to prohibit some computation done somewhere in the code of Linux.
+At the time I saw an article saying that Linux was 0.25 percent of the whole
+system. So by multiplying 300 by 400 we can estimate the number of patents that
+would prohibit something in the whole system as being around 100,000. This is
+a very rough estimate only, and no more accurate information is available, 
since
+trying to figure it out would be a gigantic task.
+Now this lawyer did not publish the list of patents, because that would have
+endangered the developers of Linux the kernel, putting them in a position where
+the penalties if they were sued would be greater. He didn’t want to hurt 
them;
+he wanted to demonstrate how bad this problem is, of patent gridlock.
+Programmers can understand this immediately, but politicians usually don’t
+know much about programming; they usually imagine that patents are basically
+much like copyrights, only somehow stronger. They imagine that since software
+developers are not endangered by the copyrights on their work, that they 
won’t
+be endangered by the patents on their work either. They imagine that, since
+when you write a program you have the copyright, [therefore likewise] if you
+write a program you have the patents also. This is false—so how do we give
+them a clue what patents would really do? What they really do in countries like
+the US?
+I find it’s useful to make an analogy between software and symphonies. 
Here’s
+why it’s a good analogy.
+A program or symphony combines many ideas. A symphony combines many
+musical ideas. But you can’t just pick a bunch of ideas and say “Here’s 
my
+combination of ideas, do you like it?” Because in order to make them work you
+have to implement them all. You can’t just pick musical ideas and list them 
and
+say, “Hey, how do you like this combination?” You can’t hear that 
[list]. You
+have to write notes which implement all these ideas together.
+The hard task, the thing most of us wouldn’t be any good at, is writing all
+these notes to make the whole thing sound good. Sure, lots of us could pick
+musical ideas out of a list, but we wouldn’t know how to write a 
good-sounding
+symphony to implement those ideas. Only some of us have that talent. That’s
+the thing that limits you. I could probably invent a few musical ideas, but I
+wouldn’t know how to use them to any effect.
+So imagine that it’s the 1700s, and the governments of Europe decide that
+they want to promote the progress of symphonic music by establishing a system
+of musical idea patents, so that any musical idea described in words could be
+patented.
+For instance, using a particular sequence of notes as a motif could be
+patented, or a chord progression could be patented, or a rhythmic pattern could
+be patented, or using certain instruments by themselves could be patented, or
+a format of repetitions in a movement could be patented. Any sort of musical
+idea that could be described in words would have been patentable.
+Now imagine that it’s 1800 and you’re Beethoven, and you want to write a
+symphony. You’re going to find it’s much harder to write a symphony you 
don’t
+
+158
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+get sued for than to write one that sounds good, because you have to thread
+your way around all the patents that exist. If you complained about this, the
+patent holders would say, “Oh, Beethoven, you’re just jealous because we 
had
+these ideas first. Why don’t you go and think of some ideas of your own?”
+Now Beethoven had ideas of his own. The reason he’s considered a great
+composer is because of all of the new ideas that he had, and he actually used.
+And he knew how to use them in such a way that they would work, which was
+to combine them with lots of well-known ideas. He could put a few new ideas
+into a composition together with a lot of old and uncontroversial ideas. And
+the result was a piece that was controversial, but not so much so that people
+couldn’t get used to it.
+To us, Beethoven’s music doesn’t sound controversial; I’m told it was, 
when
+it was new. But because he combined his new ideas with a lot of known ideas,
+he was able to give people a chance to stretch a certain amount. And they
+could, which is why to us those ideas sound just fine. But nobody, not even a
+Beethoven, is such a genius that he could reinvent music from zero, not using
+any of the well-known ideas, and make something that people would want to
+listen to. And nobody is such a genius he could reinvent computing from zero,
+not using any of the well-known ideas, and make something that people want to
+use.
+When the technological context changes so frequently, you end up with a
+situation where what was done 20 years ago is totally inadequate. Twenty years
+ago there was no World Wide Web. So, sure, people did a lot of things with
+computers back then, but what they want to do today are things that work with
+the World Wide Web. And you can’t do that using only the ideas that were
+known 20 years ago. And I presume that the technological context will continue
+to change, creating fresh opportunities for somebody to get patents that give
+the shaft to the whole field.
+Big companies can even do this themselves. For instance, a few years ago
+Microsoft decided to make a phony open standard for documents and to get
+it approved as a standard by corrupting the International Standards 
Organization, which they did. But they designed it using something that 
Microsoft
+had patented. Microsoft is big enough that it can start with a patent, design
+a format or protocol to use that patented idea (whether it’s helpful or 
not), in
+such a way that there’s no way to be compatible unless you use that same idea
+too. And then Microsoft can make that a de facto standard with or without
+help from corrupted standards bodies. Just by its weight it can push people 
into
+using that format, and that basically means that they get a stranglehold over
+the whole world. So we need to show the politicians what’s really going on 
here.
+We need to show them why this is bad.
+Now I’ve heard it said that the reason New Zealand is considering software
+patents is that one large company wants to be given some monopolies. To
+restrict everyone in the country so that one company will make more money is
+the absolute opposite of statesmanship.
+
+Chapter 26: Microsoft’s New Monopoly
+
+159
+
+26 Microsoft’s New Monopoly
+This article was written in July 2005. Microsoft adopted a different policy
+in 2006, so the specific policies described below and the specific criticisms
+of them are only of historical significance. The overall problem remains,
+however: Microsoft’s cunningly worded new policy (see http://grokdoc.
+net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_
+Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted) does not give anyone
+clear permission to implement OOXML.
+
+European legislators who endorse software patents frequently claim that those
+wouldn’t affect free software (or “open source”). Microsoft’s lawyers 
are determined to prove they are mistaken.
+Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered the free
+software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as “Linux”) as the
+principal competitor to Windows, and spoke of using patents and secret file
+formats to hold us back.
+Because Microsoft has so much market power, it can often impose new standards 
at will. It need only patent some minor idea, design a file format, programming 
language, or communication protocol based on it, and then pressure
+users to adopt it. Then we in the free software community will be forbidden
+to provide software that does what these users want; they will be locked in to
+Microsoft, and we will be locked out from serving them.
+Previously Microsoft tried to get its patented scheme for spam blocking
+adopted as an Internet standard, so as to exclude free software from handling
+email. The standards committee in charge rejected the proposal, but Microsoft
+said it would try to convince large ISPs to use the scheme anyway.
+Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word files.
+Several years ago, Microsoft abandoned its documented format for saving
+documents, and switched to a new format which was secret. However, the 
developers of free software word processors such as AbiWord and OpenOffice.org
+experimented assiduously for years to figure out the format, and now those 
programs can read most Word files. But Microsoft isn’t licked yet.
+The next version of Microsoft Word will use formats that involve a technique
+that Microsoft claims to hold a patent on. Microsoft offers a royalty-free 
patent
+license for certain limited purposes, but it is so limited that it does not 
allow
+free software. You can see the license here: http://microsoft.com/whdc/xps/
+xpspatentlic.mspx.
+Copyright c 2005, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2005. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+160
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Free software is defined as software that respects four fundamental freedoms:
+(0) freedom to run the software as you wish, (1) freedom to study the source
+code and modify it to do what you wish, (2) freedom to make and redistribute
+copies, and (3) freedom to publish modified versions. Only programmers can
+directly exercise freedoms 1 and 3, but all users can exercise freedoms 0 and 
2,
+and all users benefit from the modifications that programmers write and 
publish.
+Distributing an application under Microsoft’s patent license imposes license
+terms that prohibit most possible modifications of the software. Lacking 
freedom
+3, the freedom to publish modified versions, it would not be free software. (I
+think it could not be “open source” software either, since that definition 
is
+similar; but it is not identical, and I cannot speak for the advocates of open
+source.)
+The Microsoft license also requires inclusion of a specific statement. That
+requirement would not in itself prevent the program from being free: it is 
normal for free software to carry license notices that cannot be changed, and 
this
+statement could be included in one of them. The statement is biased and 
confusing, since it uses the term “intellectual property”; fortunately, one 
is not
+required to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful, only to include 
it.
+The software developer could cancel its misleading effect with a disclaimer 
like
+this: “The following misleading statement has been imposed on us by 
Microsoft;
+please be advised that it is propaganda. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/
+not-ipr.html for more explanation.”
+However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is actually quite
+cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly accepted and applied the
+restrictions of the Microsoft patent license. The resulting program is clearly 
not
+free software.
+Some free software licenses, such as the most popular GNU General Public
+License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn’t free
+software in the same way. (We call that the “liberty or death” clause, 
since it
+ensures the program will remain free or die.) To apply Microsoft’s license 
to a
+program under the GNU GPL would violate the program’s license; it would be
+illegal. Many other free software licenses permit nonfree modified versions. It
+wouldn’t be illegal to modify such a program and publish the modified version
+under Microsoft’s patent license. But that modified version, with its 
modified
+license, wouldn’t be free software.
+Microsoft’s patent covering the new Word format is a US patent. It doesn’t
+restrict anyone in Europe; Europeans are free to make and use software that
+can read this format. Europeans that develop or use software currently enjoy
+an advantage over Americans: Americans can be sued for patent infringement
+for their software activities in the US, but the Europeans cannot be sued for
+their activities in Europe. Europeans can already get US software patents and
+sue Americans, but Americans cannot get European software patents if Europe
+doesn’t allow them.
+All that will change if the European Parliament authorizes software patents.
+Microsoft will be one of thousands of foreign software patent holders that will
+
+Chapter 26: Microsoft’s New Monopoly
+
+161
+
+bring their patents over to Europe to sue the software developers and computer
+users there. Of the 50,000-odd putatively invalid software patents issued by
+the European Patent Office, around 80 percent do not belong to Europeans.
+The European Parliament should vote to keep these patents invalid, and keep
+Europeans safe.
+2009 Note
+The EU directive to allow software patents was rejected, but the European
+Patent Office has continued issuing them and some countries treat them as 
valid.
+See http://ffii.org for more information and to participate in the campaign
+against software patents in Europe.
+
+Part V:
+The Licenses
+
+Chapter 27: Introduction to the Licenses
+
+165
+
+27 Introduction to the Licenses
+Written by Brett Smith and Richard Stallman.
+This part contains the text of the latest versions of the primary GNU licenses:
+the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public
+License (LGPL), and the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL). Though
+they are legal documents, they belong in this book of essays because they are
+concrete expressions of the ideals of free software.
+Software development for the GNU operating system began in 1984. Once
+Richard Stallman had parts of the GNU system that were worth releasing, he
+needed a license to release them under. Some free software licenses already
+existed; these gave users permission to modify and redistribute the software,
+but they also allowed using the code in proprietary versions and proprietary
+programs. Using those licenses, GNU would have failed to achieve its goal of
+delivering freedom to all users, because middlemen would have converted the
+GNU code into proprietary software.
+So Stallman devised a license to assure every user the freedom to modify and
+redistribute the software. It granted these permissions under one key 
condition:
+whoever distributed the software must pass along the authorization to modify
+and redistribute that same software, along with the source code making it 
practical to do so. Stallman coined the term “copyleft” (see “What Is 
Copyleft?” on
+p. 127) to describe this key twist of using the legal power of copyright to 
ensure
+freedom for all users.
+GNU copyleft licenses were first developed for software, and later for related
+areas such as software documentation. In them, the principles of the free 
software
+movement, explained throughout the essays in this book, take practical form.
+Each of their successive revisions has had to wrestle with free software’s 
legal
+and practical obstacles and offers numerous illustrations of how free software
+ideals are codified into legal terms.
+The Origins of the GPL
+The first version of the GNU General Public License was published in 1989—but
+Stallman had been releasing software under copyleft licenses as part of the GNU
+Project since as early as 1985. Prior to 1989, each published GNU program
+had been covered by a license specifically tailored for it. Instead of a single
+GNU General Public License, there was a GNU CC General Public License, a
+GDB General Public License, and so on. These licenses were identical except for
+minor differences: for instance, terms about displaying license notices to 
users
+were different for different programs and, unless it covered a program that was
+Copyright c 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+This essay is published in Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of 
Richard
+M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+166
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+just one source file, each license contained the name of the program it applied
+to.
+By 1989, Stallman had had enough experience with different GNU packages
+under slightly different licenses to conclude that it was crucial to unify 
them into
+one license that would cover all these packages. He worked with Jerry Cohen,
+an attorney at Perkins Smith & Cohen LLP, to collect concepts from all the
+different licenses written up to that point, and bring them together into one
+license. It was thus that on 1 February 1989 the GNU General Public License
+was born.
+The first version of the license sought to ensure two results: first, that all
+derived works of the software would be released under the same license and,
+second, that everyone who received the software would have a chance to get the
+source code. These requirements implement a strong copyleft by blocking the
+three main ways of making programs proprietary: with copyright, with end user
+license agreements, and by not distributing source code.
+In comparison to the program-specific licenses that had preceded it, GPL
+version 1 featured few substantial changes—the GPL was evolutionary, not
+revolutionary—but it made a big practical difference. Previously, developers
+who had wanted to copyleft a program had needed to tailor one of the existing
+licenses to that program. Many had not bothered. With the release of the GPL,
+those developers had a license they could use out of the box to provide all of
+their users with freedom to share and change the software. It was a powerful
+tool.
+Version 2
+After the 1981 US Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Diehr, the US Patent
+and Trademark Office began issuing patents for software. Software patents
+threaten free software and proprietary software alike (see part IV in this 
book),
+and Stallman realized that they could subvert the copyleft in the GNU GPL.
+By selectively issuing patent licenses, patent holders can arbitrarily control
+how the software under them is distributed or modified. A patent holder can
+give one party permission to resell the program, another permission to develop
+and use a modified version at her company, and a third permission to do all the
+activities that the GPL itself allows. They can demand whatever they wish in
+exchange for these permissions. They have this power over any software that
+implements the patented idea, whether or not they have modified or distributed
+it themselves. This power threatens free software because third parties with
+patents can impose restrictions on free software users and developers.
+If patent holders don’t distribute or modify software, then a software 
license
+based on copyright like the GPL can’t control their activities: they 
haven’t done
+anything that requires permission under the license. But the software license
+can stop each of the program’s distributors from entering limiting agreements
+with the patent holder. Enter GPL version 2: a new section in the license
+(sec. 7) explicitly says that if parties are subject to other legal 
agreements—
+such as a patent license—that contradict the GPL’s terms, then the licensee
+
+Chapter 27: Introduction to the Licenses
+
+167
+
+must refrain from distributing the software at all. As a result, any party that
+wants to distribute or modify the software, and also obtain a patent license,
+must ensure that the terms of that license are consistent with all of the 
GPL’s
+conditions: recipients of the software must receive it under the same terms, 
with
+no additional restrictions, and have the means to get the source code.
+This new section protected the integrity of the distribution system for 
GPLcovered software. A fundamental principle of the license is that every 
licensee,
+from the most humble individual to the largest corporation, has the exact same
+rights to share and change the software. Patent holders who do not distribute
+the software themselves and selectively issues patent licenses could 
potentially
+interfere with this goal, splitting licensees into different groups however 
they see
+fit. Section 7 of GPL version 2 prevents this abuse.
+The LGPL
+The GPL worked well for the programming tools, utilities, and games that were
+released by the GNU Project in the early years; however, Stallman recognized
+that releasing the recently developed GNU C Library the same way could 
backfire. Aside from some extensions, the GNU C Library was to be a compatible
+replacement for the UNIX C Library, so any C program would be able link with
+either one. If proprietary C programs were not allowed to use the GNU C 
Library, they would simply use the UNIX library. Being strict in this case would
+gain nothing.
+Stallman decided to compromise with a modified copyleft: one that would
+protect the freedom of the library itself, but not that of the programs that 
use
+it. This idea was implemented in a license originally called the GNU Library
+General Public License, first published as version 2.0, in June 1991. The 
original LGPL stated Conditions like the GPL’s—with an important exception: 
if
+someone else’s program used the library only by referring to it as a 
library, that
+program’s source could be distributed under license terms of the author’s 
choosing. However, the executable made by combining the program and the library
+had to come with a copy of the LGPL and source code for the library, and
+provide some mechanism for users who have modified the library to update the
+executable to use their modified library.
+How does a developer use the work as a library in order to take advantage of
+the special set of conditions provided by LGPLv2? Think of a computer program
+as a series of instructions for doing a particular job: compiling or linking 
the
+program with a library provides the programmer with a means to say, “When
+the program gets to this point, get further instructions from the library, and
+come back here when those are done.” Libraries are commonly used in software
+development because they make the effort less repetitive and less error prone:
+programmers don’t have to reinvent the wheel—and perhaps introduce bugs in
+the process—every time they want to accomplish a particular task. Because
+libraries are so widely created and used, developers have the means to readily
+take advantage of the LGPL’s additional permissions.
+Version 2.0 of the license worked as intended: in some situations, proprietary
+
+168
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+software developers chose to use an LGPL-covered library over a proprietary
+alternative, and users received the freedom to share and change that library.
+This did not produce an “ideal” outcome—where the user had complete 
control
+over the entire program—but in these cases the GPL would not have achieved
+that ideal outcome either. The LGPL assured the users some freedom where
+they would have otherwise had none.
+The name “Library GPL” led some free software developers to assume all
+libraries ought on principle to be licensed this way, but that was not the 
intent—
+when a free library has no proprietary competitor, releasing it under the GNU
+GPL can benefit free software. To avoid this unintended message, Stallman
+renamed this license to the Lesser General Public License, and incremented
+the version number to 2.1 to reflect the relatively minor changes in the text:
+the license sported a new preamble, a few wording clarifications, and allowed
+programs to make their calls to the library through special system facilities 
for
+shared libraries where those are available. The Lesser General Public License
+version 2.1 was released in February 1999.
+The FDL
+At the turn of the century, free software was growing much faster than it had
+been previously; the documentation, however, was not keeping pace. Stallman
+was concerned about this failure and wrote about it in “Free Software Needs
+Free Documentation” (p. 61).
+While there are some similarities between software and documentation—they
+are both works that are meant for practical use—there are important 
differences
+in the ways they can be used. The GPL and the LGPL were not suitable for
+manuals.
+For some time, GNU packages had been using an untitled, simple, ad hoc
+copyleft license for each manual. Since each manual’s license was different, 
text
+could not be copied from one manual to another. So Stallman wrote the GNU
+Free Documentation License, a copyleft license designed primarily for software
+documentation and other practical written works.
+The FDL was first published in March 2000. The principles of the copyleft
+remain the same: everyone who receives a copy of the work should be able to
+modify and redistribute it. Where the FDL differs from the software licenses is
+in the details of its implementation: conditions about how to attribute the 
work
+and provide “source code”—an editable version of the document—are 
different.
+Version 3
+During the 1990s, as free software became more popular, the GPL emerged
+as the clear copyleft license of choice for the community, and was adopted by
+the majority of free software projects; at the same time, however, proprietary
+developers had come up with methods of effectively denying users the freedoms
+that the GPL was meant to protect, without actually violating the GPL. In
+addition, there were other practices that the GPL did not handle conveniently.
+To deal with these issues called for an updated version of the license.
+
+Chapter 27: Introduction to the Licenses
+
+169
+
+Around 2002, Stallman and others at the Free Software Foundation began
+discussing how to update the GPL, and the LGPL along with it. The FSF 
established a public review process, run with help from attorneys at the 
Software
+Freedom Law Center, to catch possible problems before actually releasing the
+new licenses. Committees of advisors from the community studied issues raised
+by public comments and reported the various positions and arguments to 
Stallman, who decided what policy to adopt; then he wrote license text with 
advice
+and suggestions from the attorneys. The importance of the changes made are
+explained in “Why Upgrade to GPLv3” (p. 185).
+Version 3 used new terminology to promote uniform interpretations in different 
jurisdictions, and modified some requirements to fit new practices in the
+free software community. Beyond that, it introduced several new conditions to
+strengthen the copyleft and thereby the free software community as a whole.
+For instance, it
+• blocked distributors from restricting users by building hardware that 
rejects
+the users’ modified versions (“tivoization”);
+• allowed code to carry limited additional requirements, for compatibility
+with some other popular free software licenses;
+• and strengthened patent requirements by providing clear terms to handle 
patent cross-licenses, which are common arrangements between large
+patent-holding companies.
+Both GPLv3 and LGPLv3 included terms to address all of these issues, and
+were finally released on 29 June 2007. These licenses are the state of the art 
in
+copyleft, going farther than any other software license to protect users’ 
freedom
+and bring about a world in harmony with the ideals expressed in this book.
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+171
+
+28 The GNU General Public License
+Version 3, 29 June 2007
+Copyright c 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/
+51 Franklin St., Floor 5, Boston, MA 02110-1335, USA
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license 
document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+Preamble
+The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and 
other
+kinds of works.
+The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take
+away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General 
Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change
+all versions of a program—to make sure it remains free software for all its 
users.
+We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for
+most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by 
its
+authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
+When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our
+General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
+to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that 
you
+receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the 
software
+or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these
+things.
+To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these
+rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain 
responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: 
responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
+For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for
+a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.
+You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
+must show them these terms so they know their rights.
+Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1)
+assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you 
legal
+permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
+For the developers’ and authors’ protection, the GPL clearly explains that
+there is no warranty for this free software. For both users’ and authors’ 
sake,
+the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their
+problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
+Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified 
versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This 
is
+fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users’ freedom to 
change
+
+172
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of 
products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most 
unacceptable.
+Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice 
for
+those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand
+ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL,
+as needed to protect the freedom of users.
+Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States
+should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on 
generalpurpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special 
danger
+that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. 
To
+prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program
+non-free.
+The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification
+follow.
+
+TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+0. Definitions.
+“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
+“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of
+works, such as semiconductor masks.
+“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License.
+Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” 
may be
+individuals or organizations.
+To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
+in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
+exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the 
earlier
+work or a work “based on” the earlier work.
+A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based
+on the Program.
+To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without 
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under
+applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a
+private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without
+modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other
+activities as well.
+To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
+parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a
+computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
+An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the
+extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that
+(1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that
+there is no warranty for the work (except to the extent that warranties
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+173
+
+are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and
+how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user
+commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets
+this criterion.
+1. Source Code.
+The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a
+work.
+A “Standard Interface” means an interface that either is an official 
standard
+defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of interfaces specified
+for a particular programming language, one that is widely used among
+developers working in that language.
+The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than
+the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging
+a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and
+(b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or
+to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available
+to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context,
+means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of
+the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs,
+or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used
+to run it.
+The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the
+source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run
+the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those
+activities. However, it does not include the work’s System Libraries, or
+general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used
+unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the
+work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files
+associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared
+libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically
+designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow
+between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
+The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate 
automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
+The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same
+work.
+2. Basic Permissions.
+All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright
+on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are
+met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the
+unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered
+by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered
+
+174
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent,
+as provided by copyright law.
+You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without 
conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
+You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having
+them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities
+for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this
+License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright.
+Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively 
on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that
+prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside
+their relationship with you.
+Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the
+conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it
+unnecessary.
+
+3. Protecting Users’ Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
+No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure
+under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO
+copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting
+or restricting circumvention of such measures.
+When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid
+circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention
+is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered
+work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of
+the work as a means of enforcing, against the work’s users, your or third
+parties’ legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
+4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.
+You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive
+it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish 
on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices
+stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord
+with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of
+any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the
+Program.
+You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and
+you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
+5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
+You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
+produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms
+of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+a. The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it,
+and giving a relevant date.
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+175
+
+b. The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under 
this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement 
modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all
+notices”.
+c. You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to
+anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, 
along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the
+whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. 
This License gives no permission to license the work in any other
+way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately
+received it.
+d. If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate 
Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces
+that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not
+make them do so.
+A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
+works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
+which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on
+a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if
+the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access
+or legal rights of the compilation’s users beyond what the individual works
+permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this
+License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
+6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
+You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
+sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable 
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
+a. Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a 
physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on 
a durable physical medium customarily used
+for software interchange.
+b. Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a 
physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer,
+valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare
+parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who
+possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source
+for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on
+a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange,
+for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this 
conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding
+Source from a network server at no charge.
+
+176
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+c. Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written
+offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed
+only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the
+object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
+d. Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
+(gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding 
Source in the same way through the same place at no further
+charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding
+Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object
+code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different 
server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying 
facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to
+the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of 
what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
+obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy
+these requirements.
+e. Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you
+inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source
+of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under
+subsection 6d.
+A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from
+the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in
+conveying the object code work.
+A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any
+tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or
+household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into
+a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful 
cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product
+received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or 
common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular
+user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects
+or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless 
of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or
+non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of
+use of the product.
+“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, 
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and
+execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a
+modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice
+to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in
+no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been
+made.
+If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or 
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+177
+
+transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is
+transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of
+how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed
+under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information.
+But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains 
the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for
+example, the work has been installed in ROM).
+The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a 
requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for
+a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User
+Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network
+may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects 
the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for
+communication across the network.
+Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in
+accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented
+(and with an implementation available to the public in source code form),
+and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or
+copying.
+7. Additional Terms.
+“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this 
License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional
+permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as
+though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid
+under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the
+Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but
+the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the
+additional permissions.
+When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove
+any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional 
permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain
+cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions
+on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can
+give appropriate copyright permission.
+Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add
+to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that
+material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
+a. Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of
+sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
+b. Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author
+attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by 
works containing it; or
+
+178
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+c. Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring 
that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable
+ways as different from the original version; or
+d. Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors
+of the material; or
+e. Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
+names, trademarks, or service marks; or
+f. Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material
+by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with
+contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability
+that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors
+and authors.
+
+All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further 
restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you 
received it,
+or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this 
License
+along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
+If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing
+or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material
+governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further
+restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
+If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must
+place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that
+apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable
+terms.
+Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form
+of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above 
requirements apply either way.
+8. Termination.
+You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided 
under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify
+it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License
+(including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section
+11).
+However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a
+particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until
+the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b)
+permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by
+some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
+Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated 
permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some 
reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation
+of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the
+violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+179
+
+Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses
+of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License.
+If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you
+do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section
+10.
+9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
+You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy
+of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as
+a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise
+does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License
+grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These
+actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
+modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of
+this License to do so.
+10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.
+Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a
+license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work,
+subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance
+by third parties with this License.
+An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an 
organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an 
organization, or
+merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an
+entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of
+the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party’s predecessor
+in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to
+possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor
+in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
+You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights
+granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose
+a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under
+this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim
+or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by
+making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any
+portion of it.
+11. Patents.
+A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License
+of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus
+licensed is called the contributor’s “contributor version”.
+A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or 
controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired,
+that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of
+making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims
+that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of
+
+180
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” 
includes
+the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the 
requirements of this License.
+Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
+license under the contributor’s essential patent claims, to make, use, sell,
+offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents
+of its contributor version.
+In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express 
agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such
+as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for
+patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means
+to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against
+the party.
+If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the
+Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free
+of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available
+network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1)
+cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive
+yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3)
+arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to
+extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying”
+means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your
+conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient’s use of the
+covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents
+in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
+If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement,
+you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and
+grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work
+authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the
+covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended
+to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.
+A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the 
scope
+of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the 
nonexercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under
+this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to
+an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing
+software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the
+extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third
+party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work
+from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of
+the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or
+(b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations
+that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement,
+or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+181
+
+Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any
+implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be
+available to you under applicable patent law.
+12. No Surrender of Others’ Freedom.
+If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse
+you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work
+so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any
+other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it
+at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a
+royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program,
+the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be
+to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
+13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
+Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission
+to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of
+the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and
+to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to
+apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of
+the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction
+through a network will apply to the combination as such.
+14. Revised Versions of this License.
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
+the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
+will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program 
specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License
+“or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the
+terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version
+published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a 
version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose
+any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
+If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the
+GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy’s public statement of
+acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version
+for the Program.
+Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions.
+However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright
+holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version.
+
+182
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
+THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE
+EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
+OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
+AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS”
+WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
+AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD
+THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST
+OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+16. Limitation of Liability.
+IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR
+AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR
+ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE
+PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
+DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL
+OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
+INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR 
DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A
+FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
+PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS
+BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
+If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above 
cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts
+shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver
+of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or
+assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a
+fee.
+
+END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+Chapter 28: The GNU General Public License
+
+183
+
+How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible
+use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software 
which
+everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
+To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach
+them to the start of each source file to most effectively state the exclusion 
of
+warranty; and each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a 
pointer
+to where the full notice is found.
+one line to give the program’s name and a brief idea of what it does.
+Copyright (C) year name of author
+This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
+it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at
+your option) any later version.
+This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
+WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+General Public License for more details.
+You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like
+this when it starts in an interactive mode:
+program Copyright (C) year name of author
+This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY;
+for details type ‘show w’. This is free software,
+and you are welcome to redistribute it under
+certain conditions; type ‘show c’ for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands ‘show w’ and ‘show c’ should show the 
appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, your program’s 
commands
+might be different; for a GUI interface, you would use an “about box”.
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or school,
+if any, to sign a “copyright disclaimer” for the program, if necessary. For
+more information on this, and how to apply and follow the GNU GPL, see
+http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
+The GNU General Public License does not permit incorporating your
+program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, 
you may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with 
the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU
+Lesser General Public License instead of this License. But first, please read
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html.
+
+Chapter 29: Why Upgrade to GPLv3
+
+185
+
+29 Why Upgrade to GPLv3
+Version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has been released,
+enabling free software packages to upgrade from GPL version 2. This article
+explains why upgrading the license is important.
+First of all, it is important to note that upgrading is a choice. GPL version
+2 will remain a valid license, and no disaster will happen if some programs
+remain under GPLv2 while others advance to GPLv3. These two licenses are
+incompatible, but that isn’t a fundamental problem.
+When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there
+is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a
+single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses:
+each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger 
program,
+the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make
+them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but
+it wouldn’t do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause.
+Fortunately, license incompatibility matters only when you want to link,
+merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There
+is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by
+side in an operating system. For instance, the TEX license and the Apache 
license
+are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn’t stop us from running TEX and
+Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they
+are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while
+Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.
+Keeping a program under GPLv2 won’t create problems. The reason to
+migrate is because of the existing problems that GPLv3 will address.
+One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means
+certain “appliances” (which have computers inside) contain GPL-covered 
software that you can’t effectively change, because the appliance shuts down 
if it
+detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the 
software
+has features the manufacturer knows people will want to change, and aims to
+stop people from changing them. The manufacturers of these computers take
+advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don’t let you 
do
+likewise.
+Some argue that competition between appliances in a free market should
+suffice to keep nasty features to a low level. Perhaps competition alone would
+avoid arbitrary, pointless misfeatures like “Must shut down between 1pm and
+5pm every Tuesday,” but even so, a choice of masters isn’t freedom. Freedom
+Copyright c 2007, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2007. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+186
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or
+threaten someone else who decides for you.
+In the crucial area of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—nasty features 
designed to restrict your use of the data in your computer—competition
+is no help, because relevant competition is forbidden. Under the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws, it is illegal, in the US and many 
other
+countries, to distribute DVD players unless they restrict the user according 
to the
+official rules of the DVD conspiracy (its web site is http://www.dvdcca.org/,
+but the rules do not seem to be published there). The public can’t reject DRM
+by buying non-DRM players because none are available. No matter how many
+products you can choose from, they all have equivalent digital handcuffs.
+GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the handcuffs. It doesn’t forbid DRM,
+or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality 
you
+can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are 
just
+as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add 
them.
+Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom,
+GPLv3 forbids tivoization.
+The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers is to
+be expected, even occasionally. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products
+that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations.
+Another threat that GPLv3 resists is that of patent deals like the 
NovellMicrosoft pact. Microsoft wants to use its thousands of patents to make 
users
+pay Microsoft for the privilege of running GNU/Linux, and made this pact to
+try to achieve that. The deal offers rather limited protection from Microsoft
+patents to Novell’s customers.
+Microsoft made a few mistakes in the Novell-Microsoft deal, and GPLv3 is
+designed to turn them against Microsoft, extending that limited patent 
protection to the whole community. In order to take advantage of this 
protection,
+programs need to use GPLv3.
+Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid, and next time they may manage to avoid
+those mistakes. GPLv3 therefore says they don’t get a “next time.” 
Releasing
+a program under GPL version 3 protects it from Microsoft’s future attempts to
+make redistributors collect Microsoft royalties from the program’s users.
+GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program’s
+contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent
+license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won’t sue
+them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement.
+The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might have liked.
+Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes GPL-covered code give up all
+software patents, along with everyone who does not redistribute GPL-covered
+code, because there should be no software patents. Software patents are a 
vicious
+and absurd system that puts all software developers in danger of being sued by
+companies they have never heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in 
the
+field. Large programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no 
surprise if
+they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations collect
+
+Chapter 29: Why Upgrade to GPLv3
+
+187
+
+thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. 
Patents
+already obstruct free software development.
+The only way to make software development safe is to abolish software
+patents, and we aim to achieve this some day. But we cannot do this through a
+software license. Any program, free or not, can be killed by a software patent 
in
+the hands of an unrelated party, and the program’s license cannot prevent 
that.
+Only court decisions or changes in patent law can make software development
+safe from patents. If we tried to do this with GPLv3, it would fail.
+Therefore, GPLv3 seeks to limit and channel the danger. In particular, we
+have tried to save free software from a fate worse than death: to be made
+effectively proprietary, through patents. The explicit patent license of GPLv3
+makes sure companies that use the GPL to give users the four freedoms cannot
+turn around and use their patents to tell some users, “That doesn’t 
include you.”
+It also stops them from colluding with other patent holders to do this.
+Further advantages of GPLv3 include better internationalization, gentler 
termination, support for BitTorrent, and compatibility with the Apache license. 
All
+in all, plenty of reason to upgrade.
+Change is unlikely to cease once GPLv3 is released. If new threats to users’
+freedom develop, we will have to develop GPL version 4. It is important to make
+sure that programs will have no trouble upgrading to GPLv4 if and when we
+write one.
+One way to do this is to release a program under “GPL version 3 or any
+later version.” Another way is for all the contributors to a program to 
state a
+proxy who can decide on upgrading to future GPL versions. The third way is
+for all the contributors to assign copyright to one designated copyright 
holder,
+who will be in a position to upgrade the license version. One way or another,
+programs should provide this flexibility for future GPL versions.
+
+Chapter 30: The GNU Lesser General Public License
+
+189
+
+30 The GNU Lesser General Public License
+Version 3, 29 June 2007
+Copyright c 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
+license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the
+terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, 
supplemented by the additional permissions listed below.
+0. Additional Definitions.
+As used herein, “this License” refers to version 3 of the GNU Lesser 
General
+Public License, and the “GNU GPL” refers to version 3 of the GNU General
+Public License.
+“The Library” refers to a covered work governed by this License, other than
+an Application or a Combined Work as defined below.
+An “Application” is any work that makes use of an interface provided by
+the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library. Defining a
+subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode of using an
+interface provided by the Library.
+A “Combined Work” is a work produced by combining or linking an 
Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library with which
+the Combined Work was made is also called the “Linked Version”.
+The “Minimal Corresponding Source” for a Combined Work means the
+Corresponding Source for the Combined Work, excluding any source code
+for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are based
+on the Application, and not on the Linked Version.
+The “Corresponding Application Code” for a Combined Work means the
+object code and/or source code for the Application, including any data
+and utility programs needed for reproducing the Combined Work from the
+Application, but excluding the System Libraries of the Combined Work.
+1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL.
+You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License
+without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL.
+2. Conveying Modified Versions.
+If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a facility
+refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application that uses the
+facility (other than as an argument passed when the facility is invoked),
+then you may convey a copy of the modified version:
+
+190
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+a. under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to
+ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the function
+or data, the facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its
+purpose remains meaningful, or
+b. under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of this
+License applicable to that copy.
+
+3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.
+The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from a
+header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object code
+under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated material is not
+limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or
+small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length),
+you do both of the following:
+a. Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the
+Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
+this License.
+b. Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this
+license document.
+4. Combined Works.
+You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that, taken
+together, effectively do not restrict modification of the portions of the 
Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse engineering for debugging 
such modifications, if you also do each of the following:
+a. Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that the
+Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by
+this License.
+b. Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and
+this license document.
+c. For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during execution, 
include the copyright notice for the Library among these notices,
+as well as a reference directing the user to the copies of the GNU GPL
+and this license document.
+d. Do one of the following:
+0. Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of
+this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form
+suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine
+or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked
+Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner
+specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
+
+Chapter 30: The GNU Lesser General Public License
+
+191
+
+1. Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A 
suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time a
+copy of the Library already present on the user’s computer system, and (b) 
will operate properly with a modified version of the
+Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked Version.
+e. Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise be
+required to provide such information under section 6 of the GNU GPL,
+and only to the extent that such information is necessary to install
+and execute a modified version of the Combined Work produced by
+recombining or relinking the Application with a modified version of the
+Linked Version. (If you use option 4d0, the Installation Information
+must accompany the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application 
Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the
+Installation Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the
+GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.)
+5. Combined Libraries.
+You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side
+by side in a single library together with other library facilities that are
+not Applications and are not covered by this License, and convey such a
+combined library under terms of your choice, if you do both of the following:
+a. Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based
+on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities, conveyed
+under the terms of this License.
+b. Give prominent notice with the combined library that part of it is a
+work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying 
uncombined form of the same work.
+6. Revised Versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License.
+The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the GNU Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new
+versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
+detail to address new problems or concerns.
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library as
+you received it specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU Lesser
+General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the
+option of following the terms and conditions either of that published version 
or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If
+the Library as you received it does not specify a version number of the
+GNU Lesser General Public License, you may choose any version of the
+GNU Lesser General Public License ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+If the Library as you received it specifies that a proxy can decide whether
+future versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License shall apply, that
+proxy’s public statement of acceptance of any version is permanent 
authorization for you to choose that version for the Library.
+
+Chapter 31: GNU Free Documentation License
+
+193
+
+31 GNU Free Documentation License
+Version 1.3, 3 November 2008
+Copyright c 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+http://fsf.org/
+Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+0. PREAMBLE
+The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional 
and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone
+the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying 
it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License
+preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work,
+while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.
+This License is a kind of “copyleft”, which means that derivative works of
+the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements
+the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for
+free software.
+We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software,
+because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come
+with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this
+License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual
+work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed
+book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is
+instruction or reference.
+1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
+This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that
+contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed
+under the terms of this License. Such a notice grants a world-wide, 
royaltyfree license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the 
conditions
+stated herein. The “Document”, below, refers to any such manual or work.
+Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as “you”. You
+accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way
+requiring permission under copyright law.
+A “Modified Version” of the Document means any work containing the
+Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications
+and/or translated into another language.
+A “Secondary Section” is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the
+Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or
+authors of the Document to the Document’s overall subject (or to related
+matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall
+subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a
+
+194
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship
+could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related
+matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position
+regarding them.
+The “Invariant Sections” are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are
+designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says
+that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit
+the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated
+as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the
+Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none.
+The “Cover Texts” are certain short passages of text that are listed, as
+Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the
+Document is released under this License. A Front-Cover Text may be at
+most 5 words, and a Back-Cover Text may be at most 25 words.
+A “Transparent” copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
+represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public,
+that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic
+text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or
+(for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable
+for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of
+formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise
+Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been
+arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not
+Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial
+amount of text. A copy that is not “Transparent” is called “Opaque”.
+Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ascii
+without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTEX input format, SGML or
+XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple
+HTML, PostScript or PDF designed for human modification. Examples of
+transparent image formats include PNG, XCF and JPG. Opaque formats
+include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary
+word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools
+are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript
+or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.
+The “Title Page” means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus 
such
+following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License
+requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not
+have any title page as such, “Title Page” means the text near the most
+prominent appearance of the work’s title, preceding the beginning of the
+body of the text.
+The “publisher” means any person or entity that distributes copies of the
+Document to the public.
+A section “Entitled XYZ” means a named subunit of the Document whose
+title either is precisely XYZ or contains XYZ in parentheses following text
+
+Chapter 31: GNU Free Documentation License
+
+195
+
+that translates XYZ in another language. (Here XYZ stands for a specific 
section name mentioned below, such as “Acknowledgements”, 
“Dedications”, “Endorsements”, or “History”.) To “Preserve the 
Title” of such
+a section when you modify the Document means that it remains a section
+“Entitled XYZ” according to this definition.
+The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which
+states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers 
are considered to be included by reference in this License, but
+only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these
+Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning
+of this License.
+2. VERBATIM COPYING
+You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or 
noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices,
+and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are 
reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to
+those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or
+control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
+However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute 
a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions
+in section 3.
+You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you
+may publicly display copies.
+3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
+If you publish printed copies (or copies in media that commonly have
+printed covers) of the Document, numbering more than 100, and the Document’s 
license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in
+covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover
+Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both
+covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these
+copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the
+title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the
+covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as
+they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can
+be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.
+If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you
+should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual
+cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
+If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
+more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
+copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy
+a computer-network location from which the general network-using public
+has access to download using public-standard network protocols a complete
+Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material. If you use the
+
+196
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin
+distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent
+copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one
+year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through
+your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
+It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the 
Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them
+a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.
+4. MODIFICATIONS
+You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the
+conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified
+Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the
+role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the
+Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must
+do these things in the Modified Version:
+A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from
+that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which
+should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). 
You may use the same title as a previous version if the original
+publisher of that version gives permission.
+B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
+responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version,
+together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all
+of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release
+you from this requirement.
+C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified
+Version, as the publisher.
+D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
+E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent
+to the other copyright notices.
+F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving
+the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of
+this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
+G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and
+required Cover Texts given in the Document’s license notice.
+H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
+I. Preserve the section Entitled “History”, Preserve its Title, and add to
+it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of
+the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section
+Entitled “History” in the Document, create one stating the title, year,
+authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page,
+then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the
+previous sentence.
+
+Chapter 31: GNU Free Documentation License
+
+197
+
+J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public 
access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the
+network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was
+based on. These may be placed in the “History” section. You may
+omit a network location for a work that was published at least four
+years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the
+version it refers to gives permission.
+K. For any section Entitled “Acknowledgements” or “Dedications”, 
Preserve the Title of the section, and preserve in the section all the 
substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or
+dedications given therein.
+L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their
+text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not
+considered part of the section titles.
+M. Delete any section Entitled “Endorsements”. Such a section may not
+be included in the Modified Version.
+N. Do not retitle any existing section to be Entitled “Endorsements” or
+to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.
+O. Preserve any Warranty Disclaimers.
+If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices
+that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the
+Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections
+as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections
+in the Modified Version’s license notice. These titles must be distinct from
+any other section titles.
+You may add a section Entitled “Endorsements”, provided it contains 
nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties—for 
example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an
+organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.
+You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a
+passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of
+Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text
+and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements
+made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for
+the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the
+same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you
+may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher
+that added the old one.
+The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License
+give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply
+endorsement of any Modified Version.
+
+198
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
+You may combine the Document with other documents released under this
+License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions,
+provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections
+of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant
+Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that you preserve
+all their Warranty Disclaimers.
+The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple
+identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there
+are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents,
+make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in
+parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if
+known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section
+titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined
+work.
+In the combination, you must combine any sections Entitled “History” in
+the various original documents, forming one section Entitled “History”;
+likewise combine any sections Entitled “Acknowledgements”, and any 
sections Entitled “Dedications”. You must delete all sections Entitled 
“Endorsements.”
+6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
+You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents 
released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this
+License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the
+collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim
+copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
+You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it
+individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License
+into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects
+regarding verbatim copying of that document.
+7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
+A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and
+independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution 
medium, is called an “aggregate” if the copyright resulting from
+the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation’s
+users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is
+included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in
+the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
+If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the
+Document, then if the Document is less than one half of the entire aggregate,
+the Document’s Cover Texts may be placed on covers that bracket the
+Document within the aggregate, or the electronic equivalent of covers if the
+Document is in electronic form. Otherwise they must appear on printed
+covers that bracket the whole aggregate.
+
+Chapter 31: GNU Free Documentation License
+
+199
+
+8. TRANSLATION
+Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute
+translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant 
Sections with translations requires special permission from their
+copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant 
Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections.
+You may include a translation of this License, and all the license notices in
+the Document, and any Warranty Disclaimers, provided that you also include the 
original English version of this License and the original versions of
+those notices and disclaimers. In case of a disagreement between the 
translation and the original version of this License or a notice or disclaimer, 
the
+original version will prevail.
+If a section in the Document is Entitled “Acknowledgements”, 
“Dedications”, or “History”, the requirement (section 4) to Preserve 
its Title (section 1) will typically require changing the actual title.
+9. TERMINATION
+You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except
+as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy,
+modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and will automatically terminate
+your rights under this License.
+However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a
+particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until
+the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b)
+permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by
+some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
+Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated 
permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some 
reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation
+of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the
+violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
+Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses
+of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If
+your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, receipt
+of a copy of some or all of the same material does not give you any rights
+to use it.
+10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
+The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the
+GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions
+will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
+Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the
+Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License “or
+any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms
+
+200
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that
+has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the
+Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose
+any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
+If the Document specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions
+of this License can be used, that proxy’s public statement of acceptance
+of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the
+Document.
+
+11. RELICENSING
+“Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site” (or “MMC Site”) means any
+World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides 
prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki
+that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A “Massive Multiauthor 
Collaboration” (or “MMC”) contained in the site means any set of
+copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.
+“CC-BY-SA” means the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
+license published by Creative Commons Corporation, a not-for-profit 
corporation with a principal place of business in San Francisco, California,
+as well as future copyleft versions of that license published by that same
+organization.
+“Incorporate” means to publish or republish a Document, in whole or in
+part, as part of another Document.
+An MMC is “eligible for relicensing” if it is licensed under this License, 
and
+if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other
+than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into
+the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus
+incorporated prior to November 1, 2008.
+The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the
+site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009,
+provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.
+
+Chapter 31: GNU Free Documentation License
+
+201
+
+ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your
+documents
+To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the 
License
+in the document and put the following copyright and license notices just after
+the title page:
+Copyright (C) year your name.
+Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
+under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with
+no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
+A copy of the license is included in the section entitled
+‘‘GNU Free Documentation License’’.
+
+If you have Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts and Back-Cover Texts,
+replace the “with. . . Texts.” line with this:
+with the Invariant Sections being list their titles, with
+the Front-Cover Texts being list, and with the Back-Cover Texts
+being list.
+
+If you have Invariant Sections without Cover Texts, or some other combination 
of the three, merge those two alternatives to suit the situation.
+If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend 
releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software
+license, such as the GNU General Public License, to permit their use in free
+software.
+
+Part VI:
+Traps and Challenges
+
+Chapter 32: Can You Trust Your Computer?
+
+205
+
+32 Can You Trust Your Computer?
+Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their
+computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call
+“trusted computing,” large media corporations (including the movie 
companies
+and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft
+and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. 
(Microsoft’s version of this scheme is called Palladium.) Proprietary 
programs have
+included malicious features before, but this plan would make it universal.
+Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don’t control what it
+does; you can’t study the source code, or change it. It’s not surprising 
that
+clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage.
+Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed
+to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent 
“security”
+upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions.
+But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaA music-sharing software is designed so
+that KaZaA’s business partner can rent out the use of your computer to its
+clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know 
about
+them it is hard to remove them, since you don’t have the source code.
+In the past, these were isolated incidents. “Trusted computing” would make
+the practice pervasive. “Treacherous computing” is a more appropriate name,
+because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically
+disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as 
a
+general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission.
+The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer
+includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept 
secret
+from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other 
programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs
+you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new 
authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically 
on your
+work. If you don’t allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically
+from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
+Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous 
computing for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), so that downloaded videos
+and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be 
entirely
+impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those 
companies. You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to 
share
+these things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted
+Copyright c 2002, 2007 Richard Stallman
+This essay was first published on http://gnu.org, in 2002. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+206
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but
+that is no excuse for the system.)
+Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans
+to use the same facility for email and documents—resulting in email that 
disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in
+one company.
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that
+you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can’t use the 
email to
+show that the decision was not yours. “Getting it in writing” doesn’t 
protect
+you when the order is written in disappearing ink.
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal
+or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company’s audit documents, or to
+allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you
+can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous 
computing,
+the reporter won’t be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to
+obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.
+Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing
+when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can
+read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious
+experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If
+Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the
+free software community won’t have a chance of developing software to read
+them—and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital
+Millennium Copyright Act.
+Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new
+authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically
+on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said
+in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers
+to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when
+it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style
+retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.
+You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous-computing
+application does, study how painful they are, and decide whether to accept 
them.
+Even if you can find this out, it would be foolish to accept the deal, but you
+can’t even expect the deal to stand still. Once you come to depend on using
+the program, you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal.
+Some applications will automatically download upgrades that will do something
+different—and they won’t give you a choice about whether to upgrade.
+Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using
+it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid
+installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your
+computer does. If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in
+the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can
+also run free application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this
+falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.
+
+Chapter 32: Can You Trust Your Computer?
+
+207
+
+Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free
+applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some
+versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be
+specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could
+not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every
+program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You
+could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, 
and
+told someone, that could be a crime.
+There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to
+support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the
+Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don’t Try Programming
+Act) is one of them. But even if they don’t legally force you to switch to
+treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people
+often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of
+problems (see “We Can Put an End to Word Attachments,” on p. 231). If only
+a treacherous-computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many
+people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of 
individual
+action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join
+together and confront the situation as a collective choice.
+For further information about treacherous computing, see http://www.cl.
+cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html.
+To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to
+organize. We need your help! Please support Defective by Design, the FSF’s
+campaign against Digital Restrictions Management.
+Postscripts
+1. The computer security field uses the term “trusted computing” in a 
different
+way—beware of confusion between the two meanings.
+2. The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that
+implements public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you can
+use to send secure and private email. It is useful to explore how GPG
+differs from treacherous computing, and see what makes one helpful and
+the other so dangerous.
+When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you
+use GPG to decode it, the result is an unencrypted document that you
+can read, forward, copy, and even reencrypt to send it securely to someone
+else. A treacherous-computing application would let you read the words
+on the screen, but would not let you produce an unencrypted document
+that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free software package, makes
+security features available to the users; they use it. Treacherous computing
+is designed to impose restrictions on the users; it uses them.
+
+208
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+3. The supporters of treacherous computing focus their discourse on its 
beneficial uses. What they say is often correct, just not important.
+Like most hardware, treacherous-computing hardware can be used for purposes 
which are not harmful. But these features can be implemented in
+other ways, without treacherous-computing hardware. The principal difference 
that treacherous computing makes for users is the nasty consequence:
+rigging your computer to work against you.
+What they say is true, and what I say is true. Put them together and what
+do you get? Treacherous computing is a plan to take away our freedom,
+while offering minor benefits to distract us from what we would lose.
+4. Microsoft presents Palladium as a security measure, and claims that it will
+protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently false. A presentation by
+Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated that one of the specifications of
+Palladium is that existing operating systems and applications will continue
+to run; therefore, viruses will continue to be able to do all the things that
+they can do today.
+When Microsoft employees speak of “security” in connection with Palladium, 
they do not mean what we normally mean by that word: protecting
+your machine from things you do not want. They mean protecting your
+copies of data on your machine from access by you in ways others do not
+want. A slide in the presentation listed several types of secrets Palladium
+could be used to keep, including “third party secrets” and “user 
secrets”—
+but it put “user secrets” in quotation marks, recognizing that this is 
somewhat of an absurdity in the context of Palladium.
+The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently associate 
with the context of security, such as “attack,” “malicious code,”
+“spoofing,” as well as “trusted.” None of them means what it normally
+means. “Attack” doesn’t mean someone trying to hurt you, it means you
+trying to copy music. “Malicious code” means code installed by you to do
+what someone else doesn’t want your machine to do. “Spoofing” doesn’t
+mean someone’s fooling you, it means your fooling Palladium. And so on.
+5. A previous statement by the Palladium developers stated the basic premise
+that whoever developed or collected information should have total control
+of how you use it. This would represent a revolutionary overturn of past
+ideas of ethics and of the legal system, and create an unprecedented system
+of control. The specific problems of these systems are no accident; they
+result from the basic goal. It is the goal we must reject.
+
+Chapter 33: Who Does That Server Really Serve?
+
+209
+
+33 Who Does That Server Really Serve?
+Background: How Proprietary Software Takes Away Your Freedom
+Digital technology can give you freedom; it can also take your freedom away. 
The
+first threat to our control over our computing came from proprietary software:
+software that the users cannot control because the owner (a company such as
+Apple or Microsoft) controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust
+power by inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and Digital
+Restrictions Management (DRM) (referred to as “Digital Rights Management”
+in their propaganda).
+Our solution to this problem is developing free software and rejecting 
proprietary software. Free software means that you, as a user, have four 
essential
+freedoms: (0) to run the program as you wish, (1) to study and change the 
source
+code so it does what you wish, (2) to redistribute exact copies, and (3) to 
redistribute copies of your modified versions. (See “The Free Software 
Definition,”
+on p. 3.)
+With free software, we, the users, take back control of our computing. 
Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it from our lives and 
many of
+us have done so. However, we now face a new threat to our control over our
+computing: Software as a Service. For our freedom’s sake, we have to reject 
that
+too.
+How Software as a Service Takes Away Your Freedom
+Software as a Service (SaaS) means that someone sets up a network server that
+does certain computing tasks—running spreadsheets, word processing, 
translating text into another language, etc.—then invites users to do their 
computing
+on that server. Users send their data to the server, which does their computing
+on the data thus provided, then sends the results back or acts on them 
directly.
+These servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably than 
proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically get an 
executable
+file but not the source code. That makes it hard for programmers to study the
+code that is running, so it’s hard to determine what the program really does,
+and hard to change it.
+With SaaS, the users do not have even the executable file: it is on the server,
+where the users can’t see or touch it. Thus it is impossible for them to 
ascertain
+what it really does, and impossible to change it.
+Copyright c 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published in the online edition of the Boston Review,
+on 8 March 2010, under the title “What Does That Server Really Serve?” This
+version is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M.
+Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+210
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Furthermore, SaaS automatically leads to harmful consequences equivalent
+to the malicious features of certain proprietary software. For instance, some
+proprietary programs are “spyware”: the program sends out data about 
users’
+computing activities. Microsoft Windows sends information about users’ 
activities to Microsoft. Windows Media Player and RealPlayer report what each 
user
+watches or listens to.
+Unlike proprietary software, SaaS does not require covert code to obtain the
+user’s data. Instead, users must send their data to the server in order to 
use it.
+This has the same effect as spyware: the server operator gets the data. He gets
+it with no special effort, by the nature of SaaS.
+Some proprietary programs can mistreat users under remote command. For
+instance, Windows has a back door with which Microsoft can forcibly change
+any software on the machine. The Amazon Kindle e-book reader (whose name
+suggests it’s intended to burn people’s books) has an Orwellian back door 
that
+Amazon used in 2009 to remotely delete Kindle copies of Orwell’s books 1984
+and Animal Farm which the users had purchased from Amazon.1
+SaaS inherently gives the server operator the power to change the software in
+use, or the users’ data being operated on. Once again, no special code is 
needed
+to do this.
+Thus, SaaS is equivalent to total spyware and a gaping wide back door, and
+gives the server operator unjust power over the user. We can’t accept that.
+Untangling the SaaS Issue from the Proprietary Software Issue
+SaaS and proprietary software lead to similar harmful results, but the causal
+mechanisms are different. With proprietary software, the cause is that you have
+and use a copy which is difficult or illegal to change. With SaaS, the cause is
+that you use a copy you don’t have.
+These two issues are often confused, and not only by accident. Web developers 
use the vague term “web application” to lump the server software together
+with programs run on your machine in your browser. Some web pages install
+nontrivial or even large JavaScript programs temporarily into your browser 
without informing you. When these JavaScript programs are nonfree, they are as
+bad as any other nonfree software. Here, however, we are concerned with the
+problem of the server software itself.
+Many free software supporters assume that the problem of SaaS will be solved
+by developing free software for servers. For the server operator’s sake, the 
programs on the server had better be free; if they are proprietary, their 
owners have
+power over the server. That’s unfair to the operator, and doesn’t help you 
at
+all. But if the programs on the server are free, that doesn’t protect you as 
the
+server’s user from the effects of SaaS. They give freedom to the operator, 
but
+not to you.
+1
+
+Brad Stone, “Amazon Erases Orwell Books from Kindle,” New York Times,
+17 July 2009, sec. B1, http://nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/
+companies/18amazon.html.
+
+Chapter 33: Who Does That Server Really Serve?
+
+211
+
+Releasing the server software source code does benefit the community: suitably 
skilled users can set up similar servers, perhaps changing the software. But
+none of these servers would give you control over computing you do on it, 
unless
+it’s your server. The rest would all be SaaS. SaaS always subjects you to the
+power of the server operator, and the only remedy is, Don’t use SaaS! Don’t
+use someone else’s server to do your own computing on data provided by you.
+Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services
+Does condemning SaaS mean rejecting all network servers? Not at all. Most
+servers do not raise this issue, because the job you do with them isn’t your 
own
+computing except in a trivial sense.
+The original purpose of web servers wasn’t to do computing for you, it was
+to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what most web 
sites
+do, and it doesn’t pose the SaaS problem, because accessing someone’s 
published
+information isn’t a matter of doing your own computing. Neither is publishing
+your own materials via a blog site or a microblogging service such as Twitter 
or
+identi.ca. The same goes for communication not meant to be private, such as
+chat groups. Social networking can extend into SaaS; however, at root it is 
just
+a method of communication and publication, not SaaS. If you use the service
+for minor editing of what you’re going to communicate, that is not a 
significant
+issue.
+Services such as search engines collect data from around the web and let you
+examine it. Looking through their collection of data isn’t your own computing
+in the usual sense—you didn’t provide that collection—so using such a 
service
+to search the web is not SaaS. (However, using someone else’s search engine 
to
+implement a search facility for your own site is SaaS.)
+E-commerce is not SaaS, because the computing isn’t solely yours; rather, it
+is done jointly for you and another party. So there’s no particular reason 
why
+you alone should expect to control that computing. The real issue in e-commerce
+is whether you trust the other party with your money and personal information.
+Using a joint project’s servers isn’t SaaS because the computing you do in
+this way isn’t yours personally. For instance, if you edit pages on 
Wikipedia, you
+are not doing your own computing; rather, you are collaborating in 
Wikipedia’s
+computing.
+Wikipedia controls its own servers, but groups can face the problem of SaaS if
+they do their group activities on someone else’s server. Fortunately, 
development
+hosting sites such as Savannah and SourceForge don’t pose the SaaS problem,
+because what groups do there is mainly publication and public communication,
+rather than their own private computing.
+Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone else’s server,
+which makes them SaaS. But where the data involved is just the state of play
+and the score, the worst wrong the operator might commit is favoritism. You
+might well ignore that risk, since it seems unlikely and very little is at 
stake.
+On the other hand, when the game becomes more than just a game, the issue
+changes.
+
+212
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Which online services are SaaS? Google Docs is a clear example. Its basic
+activity is editing, and Google encourages people to use it for their own 
editing;
+this is SaaS. It offers the added feature of collaborative editing, but adding
+participants doesn’t alter the fact that editing on the server is SaaS. (In 
addition, Google Docs is unacceptable because it installs a large nonfree 
JavaScript
+program into the users’ browsers.) If using a service for communication or 
collaboration requires doing substantial parts of your own computing with it 
too,
+that computing is SaaS even if the communication is not.
+Some sites offer multiple services, and if one is not SaaS, another may be
+SaaS. For instance, the main service of Facebook is social networking, and that
+is not SaaS; however, it supports third-party applications, some of which may
+be SaaS. Flickr’s main service is distributing photos, which is not SaaS, 
but it
+also has features for editing photos, which is SaaS.
+Some sites whose main service is publication and communication extend it
+with “contact management”: keeping track of people you have relationships
+with. Sending mail to those people for you is not SaaS, but keeping track of
+your dealings with them, if substantial, is SaaS.
+If a service is not SaaS, that does not mean it is OK. There are other bad
+things a service can do. For instance, Facebook distributes video in Flash, 
which
+pressures users to run nonfree software, and it gives users a misleading 
impression
+of privacy. Those are important issues too, but this article’s concern is 
the issue
+of SaaS.
+The IT industry discourages users from considering these distinctions. That’s
+what the buzzword “cloud computing” is for. This term is so nebulous that 
it
+could refer to almost any use of the Internet. It includes SaaS and it includes
+nearly everything else. The term only lends itself to uselessly broad 
statements.
+The real meaning of “cloud computing” is to suggest a devil-may-care 
approach towards your computing. It says, “Don’t ask questions, just trust 
every
+business without hesitation. Don’t worry about who controls your computing
+or who holds your data. Don’t check for a hook hidden inside our service 
before
+you swallow it.” In other words, “Think like a sucker.” I prefer to 
avoid the
+term.
+Dealing with the SaaS Problem
+Only a small fraction of all web sites do SaaS; most don’t raise the issue. 
But
+what should we do about the ones that raise it?
+For the simple case, where you are doing your own computing on data in
+your own hands, the solution is simple: use your own copy of a free software
+application. Do your text editing with your copy of a free text editor such as
+GNU Emacs or a free word processor. Do your photo editing with your copy of
+free software such as GIMP.
+But what about collaborating with other individuals? It may be hard to
+do this at present without using a server. If you use one, don’t trust a 
server
+run by a company. A mere contract as a customer is no protection unless you
+could detect a breach and could really sue, and the company probably writes
+
+Chapter 33: Who Does That Server Really Serve?
+
+213
+
+its contracts to permit a broad range of abuses. Police can subpoena your data
+from the company with less basis than required to subpoena them from you,
+supposing the company doesn’t volunteer them like the US phone companies
+that illegally wiretapped their customers for Bush. If you must use a server, 
use
+a server whose operators give you a basis for trust beyond a mere commercial
+relationship.
+However, on a longer time scale, we can create alternatives to using servers.
+For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program through which collaborators
+can share data encrypted. The free software community should develop 
distributed peer-to-peer replacements for important “web applications.” It 
may be
+wise to release them under GNU Affero GPL, since they are likely candidates for
+being converted into server-based programs by someone else. The GNU Project
+is looking for volunteers to work on such replacements. We also invite other 
free
+software projects to consider this issue in their design.
+In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do your own
+computing tasks, don’t yield; don’t use SaaS. Don’t buy or install 
“thin clients,”
+which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server,
+unless you’re going to use them with your server. Use a real computer and 
keep
+your data there. Do your work with your own copy of a free program, for your
+freedom’s sake.
+
+Chapter 34: Free but Shackled: The Java Trap
+
+215
+
+34 Free but Shackled: The Java Trap
+Since this article was first published, on 12 April 2004, Sun has relicensed
+most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General
+Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java.
+Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap.
+You must be careful, however, because not every Java platform is free.
+Sun continues distributing an executable Java platform which is nonfree,
+and other companies do so too.
+The free environment for Java is called IcedTea; the source code Sun
+freed is included in that. So that is the one you should use. Many
+GNU/Linux distributions come with IcedTea, but some include nonfree Java
+platforms.
+To reliably ensure your Java programs run fine in a free environment,
+you need to develop them using IcedTea. Theoretically the Java platforms
+should be compatible, but they are not compatible 100 percent.
+In addition, there are nonfree programs with “Java” in their name, such
+as JavaFX, and there are nonfree Java packages you might find tempting
+but need to reject. So check the licenses of whatever packages you plan to
+use. If you use Swing, make sure to use the free version, which comes with
+IcedTea.
+Aside from those Java specifics, the general issue described here remains
+important, because any nonfree library or programming platform can cause
+a similar problem. We must learn a lesson from the history of Java, so we
+can avoid other traps in the future.
+
+If your program is free software, it is basically ethical—but there is a 
trap you
+must be on guard for. Your program, though in itself free, may be restricted by
+nonfree software that it depends on. Since the problem is most prominent today
+for Java programs, we call it the Java Trap.
+A program is free software if its users have certain crucial freedoms. Roughly
+speaking, they are: the freedom to run the program, the freedom to study and
+change the source, the freedom to redistribute the source and binaries, and the
+freedom to publish improved versions. (See “The Free Software Definition,” 
on
+p. 3.) Whether any given program in source form is free software depends solely
+on the meaning of its license.
+Whether the program can be used in the Free World, used by people who
+mean to live in freedom, is a more complex question. This is not determined
+by the program’s own license alone, because no program works in isolation.
+Every program depends on other programs. For instance, a program needs to be
+compiled or interpreted, so it depends on a compiler or interpreter. If 
compiled
+Copyright c 2004, 2006, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was first published on http://gnu.org, in 2004. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+216
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+into byte code, it depends on a byte-code interpreter. Moreover, it needs 
libraries
+in order to run, and it may also invoke other separate programs that run in
+other processes. All of these programs are dependencies. Dependencies may
+be necessary for the program to run at all, or they may be necessary only for
+certain features. Either way, all or part of the program cannot operate without
+the dependencies.
+If some of a program’s dependencies are nonfree, this means that all or part
+of the program is unable to run in an entirely free system—it is unusable in
+the Free World. Sure, we could redistribute the program and have copies on
+our machines, but that’s not much good if it won’t run. That program is 
free
+software, but it is effectively shackled by its nonfree dependencies.
+This problem can occur in any kind of software, in any language. For instance, 
a free program that only runs on Microsoft Windows is clearly useless in
+the Free World. But software that runs on GNU/Linux can also be useless if it
+depends on other nonfree software. In the past, Motif (before we had LessTif)
+and Qt (before its developers made it free software) were major causes of this
+problem. Most 3D video cards work fully only with nonfree drivers, which also
+cause this problem. But the major source of this problem today is Java, because
+people who write free software often feel Java is sexy. Blinded by their 
attraction
+to the language, they overlook the issue of dependencies and fall into the Java
+Trap.
+Sun’s implementation of Java is nonfree. The standard Java libraries are
+nonfree also. We do have free implementations of Java, such as the GNU 
Compiler for Java (GCJ) and GNU Classpath, but they don’t support all the 
features
+yet. We are still catching up.
+If you develop a Java program on Sun’s Java platform, you are liable to use
+Sun-only features without even noticing. By the time you find this out, you
+may have been using them for months, and redoing the work could take more
+months. You might say, “It’s too much work to start over.” Then your 
program
+will have fallen into the Java Trap; it will be unusable in the Free World.
+The reliable way to avoid the Java Trap is to have only a free implementation
+of Java on your system. Then if you use a Java feature or library that free
+software does not yet support, you will find out straightaway, and you can 
rewrite
+that code immediately.
+Sun continues to develop additional “standard” Java libraries, and nearly 
all
+of them are nonfree; in many cases, even a library’s specification is a 
trade secret,
+and Sun’s latest license for these specifications prohibits release of 
anything
+less than a full implementation of the specification. (See http://jcp.org/
+aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf and http://jcp.org/aboutJava/
+communityprocess/final/jsr129/j2me_pb-1_0-fr-spec-license.html for
+examples.)
+Fortunately, that specification license does permit releasing an 
implementation as free software; others who receive the library can be allowed 
to change it
+and are not required to adhere to the specification. But the requirement has 
the
+effect of prohibiting the use of a collaborative development model to produce
+
+Chapter 34: Free but Shackled: The Java Trap
+
+217
+
+the free implementation. Use of that model would entail publishing incomplete
+versions, something those who have read the spec are not allowed to do.
+In the early days of the free software movement, it was impossible to avoid
+depending on nonfree programs. Before we had the GNU C compiler, every C
+program (free or not) depended on a nonfree C compiler. Before we had the
+GNU C library, every program depended on a nonfree C library. Before we
+had Linux, the first free kernel, every program depended on a nonfree kernel.
+Before we had BASH, every shell script had to be interpreted by a nonfree 
shell.
+It was inevitable that our first programs would initially be hampered by these
+dependencies, but we accepted this because our plan included rescuing them
+subsequently. Our overall goal, a self-hosting GNU operating system, included
+free replacements for all those dependencies; if we reached the goal, all our
+programs would be rescued. Thus it happened: with the GNU/Linux system,
+we can now run these programs on free platforms.
+The situation is different today. We now have powerful free operating systems
+and many free programming tools. Whatever job you want to do, you can do
+it on a free platform; there is no need to accept a nonfree dependency even
+temporarily. The main reason people fall into the trap today is because they 
are
+not thinking about it. The easiest solution to the problem is to teach people 
to
+recognize it and not fall into it.
+To keep your Java code safe from the Java Trap, install a free Java 
development environment and use it. More generally, whatever language you use, 
keep
+your eyes open, and check the free status of programs your code depends on.
+The easiest way to verify that a program is free is by looking for it in the 
Free
+Software Directory (http://fsf.org/directory). If a program is not in the
+directory, you can check its license(s) against the list of free software 
licenses
+(http://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html).
+We are trying to rescue the trapped Java programs, so if you like the Java
+language, we invite you to help in developing GNU Classpath. Trying your 
programs with the GCJ Compiler and GNU Classpath, and reporting any problems
+you encounter in classes already implemented, is also useful. However, 
finishing
+GNU Classpath will take time; if more nonfree libraries continue to be added,
+we may never have all the latest ones. So please don’t put your free 
software in
+shackles. When you write an application program today, write it to run on free
+facilities from the start.
+
+Chapter 35: The JavaScript Trap
+
+219
+
+35 The JavaScript Trap
+In the free software community, the idea that nonfree programs mistreat their
+users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to install proprietary software, 
and
+many others consider nonfreedom a strike against the program. Many users are
+aware that this issue applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, 
since
+they can be free or nonfree.
+But browsers run other nonfree programs which they don’t ask you about
+or even tell you about—programs that web pages contain or link to. These
+programs are most often written in JavaScript, though other languages are also
+used.
+JavaScript (officially called ECMAScript, but few use that name) was once
+used for minor frills in web pages, such as cute but inessential navigation and
+display features. It was acceptable to consider these as mere extensions of 
HTML
+markup, rather than as true software; they did not constitute a significant 
issue.
+Many sites still use JavaScript that way, but some use it for major programs
+that do large jobs. For instance, Google Docs downloads into your machine a
+JavaScript program which measures half a megabyte, in a compacted form that
+we could call Obfuscript because it has no comments and hardly any whitespace,
+and the method names are one letter long. The source code of a program is the
+preferred form for modifying it; the compacted code is not source code, and the
+real source code of this program is not available to the user.
+Browsers don’t normally tell you when they load JavaScript programs. Most
+browsers have a way to turn off JavaScript entirely, but none of them can check
+for JavaScript programs that are nontrivial and nonfree. Even if you’re aware
+of this issue, it would take you considerable trouble to identify and then 
block
+those programs. However, even in the free software community most users are
+not aware of this issue; the browsers’ silence tends to conceal it.
+It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by 
distributing
+the source code under a free software license. But even if the program’s 
source
+is available, there is no easy way to run your modified version instead of the
+original. Current free browsers do not offer a facility to run your own 
modified
+version instead of the one delivered in the page. The effect is comparable to
+tivoization, although not quite so hard to overcome.
+JavaScript is not the only language web sites use for programs sent to the
+user. Flash supports programming through an extended variant of JavaScript.
+We will need to study the issue of Flash to make suitable recommendations.
+Copyright c 2009, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was first published on http://gnu.org, in 2009. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+This chapter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 
United
+States License. To view a copy of this license, visit 
http://creativecommons.org/
+licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street,
+Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.
+
+220
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+Silverlight seems likely to create a problem similar to Flash, except worse, 
since
+Microsoft uses it as a platform for nonfree codecs. A free replacement for 
Silverlight does not do the job for the free world unless it normally comes 
with free
+replacement codecs.
+Java applets also run in the browser, and raise similar issues. In general,
+any sort of applet system poses this sort of problem. Having a free execution
+environment for an applet only brings us far enough to encounter the problem.
+A strong movement has developed that calls for web sites to communicate
+only through formats and protocols that are free (some say “open”); that 
is to
+say, whose documentation is published and which anyone is free to implement.
+With the presence of programs in web pages, that criterion is necessary, but
+not sufficient. JavaScript itself, as a format, is free, and use of JavaScript 
in
+a web site is not necessarily bad. However, as we’ve seen above, it also 
isn’t
+necessarily OK. When the site transmits a program to the user, it is not enough
+for the program to be written in a documented and unencumbered language;
+that program must be free, too. “Only free programs transmitted to the 
user”
+must become part of the criterion for proper behavior by web sites.
+Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several issues
+raised by “web applications.” The term “web application” was designed 
to
+disregard the fundamental distinction between software delivered to users and
+software running on the server. It can refer to a specialized client program
+running in a browser; it can refer to specialized server software; it can 
refer to
+a specialized client program that works hand in hand with specialized server
+software. The client and server sides raise different ethical issues, even if 
they
+are so closely integrated that they arguably form parts of a single program. 
This
+article addresses only the issue of the client-side software. We are addressing
+the server issue separately.
+In practical terms, how can we deal with the problem of nonfree JavaScript
+programs in web sites? Here’s a plan of action.
+First, we need a practical criterion for nontrivial JavaScript programs. Since
+“nontrivial” is a matter of degree, this is a matter of designing a simple 
criterion
+that gives good results, rather than determining the one correct answer.
+Our proposal is to consider a JavaScript program nontrivial if it makes an
+AJAX request, and consider it nontrivial if it defines methods and either loads
+an external script or is loaded as one.
+At the end of this article we propose a convention by which a nontrivial
+JavaScript program in a web page can state the URL where its source code is
+located, and can state its license too, using stylized comments.
+Finally, we need to change free browsers to support freedom for users of pages
+with JavaScript. First of all, browsers should be able to tell the user about
+nontrivial nonfree JavaScript programs, rather than running them. Perhaps
+NoScript could be adapted to do this.
+Browser users also need a convenient facility to specify JavaScript code to
+use instead of the JavaScript in a certain page. (The specified code might be
+total replacement, or a modified version of the free JavaScript program in that
+
+Chapter 35: The JavaScript Trap
+
+221
+
+page.) Greasemonkey comes close to being able to do this, but not quite, since 
it
+doesn’t guarantee to modify the JavaScript code in a page before that program
+starts to execute. Using a local proxy works, but is too inconvenient now to be
+a real solution. We need to construct a solution that is reliable and 
convenient,
+as well as sites for sharing changes. The GNU Project would like to recommend
+sites which are dedicated to free changes only.
+These features will make it possible for a JavaScript program included in a
+web page to be free in a real and practical sense. JavaScript will no longer 
be a
+particular obstacle to our freedom—no more than C and Java are now. We will
+be able to reject and even replace the nonfree nontrivial JavaScript programs,
+just as we reject and replace nonfree packages that are offered for 
installation
+in the usual way. Our campaign for web sites to free their JavaScript can then
+begin.
+Thank you to Matt Lee and John Resig for their help in defining our proposed
+criterion, and to David Parunakian and Jaffar Rumith for bringing this issue to
+my attention.
+Appendix: A Convention for Releasing Free JavaScript Programs
+For references to corresponding source code, we recommend
+// @source:
+
+followed by the URL.
+To indicate the license of the JavaScript code embedded in a page, we 
recommend putting the license notice between two notes of this form:
address@hidden The following is the entire license notice for the
+JavaScript code in this page.
+...
address@hidden The above is the entire license notice
+for the JavaScript code in this page.
+
+Of course, all of this should be contained in a multiline comment.
+The GNU GPL, like many other free software licenses, requires distribution of
+a copy of the license with both source and binary forms of the program. 
However,
+the GNU GPL is long enough that including it in a page with a JavaScript
+program can be inconvenient. You can remove that requirement, for code that
+you have the copyright on, with a license notice like this:
+Copyright (C) YYYY
+
+Developer
+
+The JavaScript code in this page is free software: you can
+redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU
+General Public License (GNU GPL) as published by the Free Software
+Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option)
+
+222
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+any later version. The code is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY;
+without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
+FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU GPL for more details.
+As additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7, you
+may distribute non-source (e.g., minimized or compacted) forms of
+that code without the copy of the GNU GPL normally required by
+section 4, provided you include this license notice and a URL
+through which recipients can access the Corresponding Source.
+
+Chapter 36: The X Window System Trap
+
+223
+
+36 The X Window System Trap
+To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major controversies in the
+free software community. The idea of copyleft is that we should fight fire with
+fire—that we should use copyright to make sure our code stays free. The GNU
+General Public License (GNU GPL) is one example of a copyleft license.
+Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution. Noncopyleft
+licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on the idea of never
+saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to use your work as the
+basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft licensing does nothing wrong,
+but it misses the opportunity to actively protect our freedom to change and
+redistribute software. For that, we need copyleft.
+For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft. It
+exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software developers
+from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by suggesting that it is
+not nice to say no. It used pressure through its rule that copylefted software
+could not be in the X Distribution.
+Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their conception 
of success. The X Consortium defined success as popularity—specifically,
+getting computer companies to use the X Window System. This definition put
+the computer companies in the driver’s seat: whatever they wanted, the X 
Consortium had to help them get it.
+Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted
+free software developers to donate their work for such use. If they had asked
+for this directly, people would have laughed. But the X Consortium, fronting
+for them, could present this request as an unselfish one. “Join us in 
donating
+our work to proprietary software developers,” they said, suggesting that this
+is a noble form of self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,” they 
said,
+suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice.
+But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that copyleft
+provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community, is sacrificing 
more
+than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium’s request entrusted the
+community’s future to the goodwill of the X Consortium.
+This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a plan to
+restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it would not be free software.
+They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary software developers,
+but to our community as well.
+Copyright c 1998, 1999, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 1998. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+224
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you not
+to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license and restrict
+its version of your program, along with the code for the core of X.
+The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down and
+transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now carrying
+out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them to release X11R6.4
+under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned restrictive license, they were
+willing to consider the idea. (They were firmly against staying with the old 
X11
+distribution terms.) Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had 
already
+failed for another reason: the XFree86 group followed the X Consortium’s old
+policy, and will not accept copylefted software.
+In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with nonfree
+distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and rereleased it 
under
+the same noncopyleft free software license that was used for X11R6.3. Thus, the
+Open Group therefore eventually did what was right, but that does not alter the
+general issue.
+Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to restrict X, 
someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software is vulnerable
+from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree version dominant, if he will
+invest sufficient resources to add significantly important features using 
proprietary code. Users who choose software based on technical characteristics, 
rather
+than on freedom, could easily be lured to the nonfree version for short-term
+convenience.
+The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by
+saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide to 
copyleft
+your X-related software.
+When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib,
+and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The X.org group does
+an important job for the community in maintaining these programs, and the
+benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm done by a fork
+in development. So it is better to work with them, and not copyleft our changes
+on these programs. Likewise for utilities such as xset and xrdb, which are 
close
+to the core of X and do not need major improvements. At least we know that
+the X.org group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as free
+software.
+The issue is different for programs outside the core of X: applications, 
window managers, and additional libraries and widgets. There is no reason not to
+copyleft them, and we should copyleft them.
+In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for inclusion in the 
X
+distributions, the GNU Project will undertake to publicize copylefted packages
+that work with X. If you would like to copyleft something, and you worry that
+its omission from the X distribution will impede its popularity, please ask us 
to
+help.
+At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for popularity.
+When a businessman tempts you with “more popularity,” he may try to 
convince
+
+Chapter 36: The X Window System Trap
+
+225
+
+you that his use of your program is crucial to its success. Don’t believe 
it! If
+your program is good, it will find many users anyway; you don’t need to feel
+desperate for any particular users, and you will be stronger if you do not. You
+can get an indescribable sense of joy and freedom by responding, “Take it or
+leave it—that’s no skin off my back.” Often the businessman will turn 
around
+and accept the program with copyleft, once you call the bluff.
+Friends, free software developers, don’t repeat old mistakes! If we do not
+copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with
+more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just
+for ourselves, but for our whole community.
+
+Chapter 37: The Problem Is Software Controlled by Its Developer
+
+227
+
+37 The Problem Is Software Controlled by
+Its Developer
+I fully agree with Jonathan Zittrain’s conclusion that we should not abandon
+general-purpose computers. Alas, I disagree completely with the path that led
+him to it. He presents serious security problems as an intolerable crisis, but 
I’m
+not convinced. Then he forecasts that users will panic in response and stampede
+toward restricted computers (which he calls “appliances”), but there is no 
sign
+of this happening.
+Zombie machines are a problem, but not a catastrophe. Moreover, far from
+panicking, most users ignore the issue. Today, people are indeed concerned 
about
+the danger of phishing (mail and web pages that solicit personal information 
for
+fraud), but using a browsing-only device instead of a general computer won’t
+protect you from that.
+Meanwhile, Apple has reported that 25 percent of iPhones have been unlocked. 
Surely at least as many users would have preferred an unlocked iPhone
+but were afraid to try a forbidden recipe to obtain it. This refutes the idea 
that
+users generally prefer that their devices be locked.
+It is true that a general computer lets you run programs designed to spy on
+you, restrict you, or even let the developer attack you. Such programs include
+KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash, Windows Media Player, Microsoft Windows,
+and MacOS. Windows Vista does all three of those things; it also lets Microsoft
+change the software without asking, or command it to permanently cease normal
+functioning.
+But restricted computers are no help, because they present the same problem
+for the same reason.
+The iPhone is designed for remote attack by Apple. When Apple remotely
+destroys iPhones that users have unlocked to enable other uses, that is no 
better
+than when Microsoft remotely sabotages Vista. The TiVo is designed to enforce 
restrictions on access to the recordings you make, and reports what you
+watch. E-book readers such as the Amazon “Swindle” are designed to stop you
+from sharing and lending your books. Features that artificially obstruct use of
+your data are known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); our protest
+campaign against DRM is hosted at http://defectivebydesign.org. (Our
+adversaries call DRM “Digital Rights Management” based on their idea that
+restricting you is their right. When you choose a term, you choose your side.)
+Copyright c 2008, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This article was first published in the March/April 2008 issue of
+http://bostonreview.net and is a response to Jonathan Zittrain’s 
“Protecting
+the Internet without Wrecking It,” which was published in the same issue and 
is
+available at http://bostonreview.net/BR33.2/zittrain.php. This version is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+228
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+The nastiest of the common restricted devices are cell phones. They transmit
+signals for tracking your whereabouts even when switched “off”; the only 
way to
+stop this is to take out all the batteries. Many can also be turned on 
remotely,
+for listening, unbeknownst to you. (The FBI is already taking advantage of
+this feature, and the US Commerce Department lists this danger in its Security
+Guide.) Cellular phone network companies regularly install software in users
+phones, without asking, to impose new usage restrictions.
+With a general computer you can escape by rejecting such programs. You
+don’t have to have KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash, Windows Media Player,
+Microsoft Windows or MacOS on your computer (I don’t). By contrast, a 
restricted computer gives you no escape from the software built into it.
+The root of this problem, both in general PCs and restricted computers, is
+software controlled by its developer. The developer (typically a corporation)
+controls what the program does, and prevents everyone else from changing it. If
+the developer decides to put in malicious features, even a master programmer
+cannot easily remove them.
+The remedy is to give the users more control, not less. We must insist on
+free/libre software, software that the users are free to change and 
redistribute.
+Free/libre software develops under the control of its users: if they don’t 
like its
+features, for whatever reason, they can change them. If you’re not a 
programmer,
+you still get the benefit of control by the users. A programmer can make the
+improvements you would like, and publish the changed version. Then you can
+use it too.
+With free/libre software, no one has the power to make a malicious feature
+stick. Since the source code is available to the users, millions of 
programmers are
+in a position to spot and remove the malicious feature and release an improved
+version; surely someone will do it. Others can then compare the two versions to
+verify independently which version treats users right. As a practical fact, 
free
+software is generally free of designed-in malware.
+Many people do acquire restricted devices, but not for motives of security.
+Why do people choose them?
+Sometimes it is because the restricted devices are physically smaller. I edit
+text all day (literally) and I find the keyboard and screen of a laptop well 
worth
+the size and weight. However, people who use computers differently may prefer
+something that fits in a pocket. In the past, these devices have typically been
+restricted, but they weren’t chosen for that reason.
+Now they are becoming less restricted. In fact, the OpenMoko cell phone
+features a main computer running entirely free/libre software, including the
+GNU/Linux operating system normally used on PCs and servers.
+A major cause for the purchase of some restricted computers is financial
+sleight of hand. Game consoles, and the iPhone, are sold for an unsustainably
+low price, and the manufacturers subsequently charge when you use them. Thus,
+game developers must pay the game console manufacturer to distribute a game,
+and they pass this cost on to the user. Likewise, AT&T pays Apple when an
+
+Chapter 37: The Problem Is Software Controlled by Its Developer
+
+229
+
+iPhone is used as a telephone. The low up-front price misleads customers into
+thinking they will save money.
+If we are concerned about the spread of restricted computers, we should
+tackle the issue of the price deception that sells them. If we are concerned 
about
+malware, we should insist on free software that gives the users control.
+Postnote
+Zittrain’s suggestion to reduce the statute of limitations on software 
patent lawsuits is a tiny step in the right direction, but it is much easier to 
solve the
+whole problem. Software patents are an unnecessary, artificial danger imposed
+on all software developers and users in the US. Every program is a combination 
of many methods and techniques—thousands of them in a large program.
+If patenting these methods is allowed, then hundreds of those used in a given
+program are probably patented. (Avoiding them is not feasible; there may be
+no alternatives, or the alternatives may be patented too.) So the developers of
+the program face hundreds of potential lawsuits from parties unknown, and the
+users can be sued as well.
+The complete, simple solution is to eliminate patents from the field of
+software. Since the patent system is created by statute, eliminating patents
+from software will be easy given sufficient political will. (See http://www.
+endsoftpatents.org.)
+
+Chapter 38: We Can Put an End to Word Attachments
+
+231
+
+38 We Can Put an End to Word Attachments
+Don’t you just hate receiving Word documents in email messages? Word 
attachments are annoying, but, worse than that, they impede people from 
switching
+to free software. Maybe we can stop this practice with a simple collective 
effort.
+All we have to do is ask each person who sends us a Word file to reconsider 
that
+way of doing things.
+Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, since
+Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change,
+copy, and redistribute it. And because Microsoft changes the Word file format
+with each release, its users are locked into a system that compels them to buy
+each upgrade whether they want a change or not. They may even find, several
+years from now, that the Word documents they are writing this year can no
+longer be read with the version of Word they use then.
+But it hurts us, too, when they assume we use Word and send us (or demand
+that we send them) documents in Word format. Some people publish or post
+documents in Word format. Some organizations will only accept files in Word
+format: I heard from someone that he was unable to apply for a job because
+resumes had to be Word files. Even governments sometimes impose Word format
+on the public, which is truly outrageous.
+For us users of free operating systems, receiving Word documents is an 
inconvenience or an obstacle. But the worst impact of sending Word format is on
+people who might switch to free systems: they hesitate because they feel they
+must have Word available to read the Word files they receive. The practice of
+using the secret Word format for interchange impedes the growth of our 
community and the spread of freedom. While we notice the occasional annoyance of
+receiving a Word document, this steady and persistent harm to our community
+usually doesn’t come to our attention. But it is happening all the time.
+Many GNU users who receive Word documents try to find ways to handle
+them. You can manage to find the somewhat obfuscated ASCII text in the file
+by skimming through it. Free software today can read most Word documents,
+but not all—the format is secret and has not been entirely decoded. Even 
worse,
+Microsoft can change it at any time.
+Worst of all, it has already done so. Microsoft Office 2007 uses by default
+a format based on the patented OOXML format. (This is the one that Microsoft 
got declared an “open standard” by political manipulation and packing
+standards committees.) The actual format is not entirely OOXML, and it is
+not entirely documented. Microsoft offers a gratis patent license for OOXML
+Copyright c 2002, 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2002. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+232
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+on terms which do not allow free implementations. We are thus beginning to
+receive Word files in a format that free programs are not even allowed to read.
+When you receive a Word file, if you think of that as an isolated event, it is
+natural to try to cope by finding a way to read it. Considered as an instance 
of
+a pernicious systematic practice, it calls for a different approach. Managing 
to
+read the file is treating a symptom of an epidemic disease; what we really want
+to do is stop the disease from spreading. That means we must convince people
+not to send or post Word documents.
+I therefore make a practice of responding to Word attachments with a polite
+message explaining why the practice of sending Word files is a bad thing, and
+asking the person to resend the material in a nonsecret format. This is a lot 
less
+work than trying to read the somewhat obfuscated ASCII text in the Word file.
+And I find that people usually understand the issue, and many say they will not
+send Word files to others any more.
+If we all do this, we will have a much larger effect. People who disregard
+one polite request may change their practice when they receive multiple polite
+requests from various people. We may be able to give Don’t send Word format!
+the status of netiquette, if we start systematically raising the issue with 
everyone
+who sends us Word files.
+To make this effort efficient, you will probably want to develop a canned reply
+that you can quickly send each time it is necessary. I’ve included two 
examples:
+the version I have been using recently, followed by a new version that teaches 
a
+Word user how to convert to other useful formats.
+• You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary
+format, so I cannot read it. If you send me the plain text, HTML, or
+PDF, then I could read it.
+Sending people documents in Word format has bad effects, because that
+practice puts pressure on them to use Microsoft software. In effect, you
+become a buttress of the Microsoft monopoly. This specific problem is a
+major obstacle to the broader adoption of GNU/Linux. Would you please
+reconsider the use of Word format for communication with other people?
+• You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret proprietary
+format, so it is hard for me to read. If you send me plain text, HTML, or
+PDF, then I will read it.
+Distributing documents in Word format is bad for you and for others.
+You can’t be sure what they will look like if someone views them with a
+different version of Word; they may not work at all.
+Receiving Word documents is bad for you because they can carry viruses
+(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_virus_(computing)). Sending Word 
documents is bad for you because a Word document normally
+includes hidden information about the author, enabling those in the know
+to pry into the author’s activities (maybe yours). Text that you think you
+deleted may still be embarrassingly present. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/
+2/hi/technology/3154479.stm for more info.
+But above all, sending people Word documents puts pressure on them to
+use Microsoft software and helps to deny them any other choice. In effect,
+
+Chapter 38: We Can Put an End to Word Attachments
+
+233
+
+you become a buttress of the Microsoft monopoly. This pressure is a major 
obstacle to the broader adoption of free software. Would you please
+switch to a different way of sending files to other people, instead of Word
+format?
+To convert the file to HTML using Word is simple. Open the document,
+click on File, then Save As, and in the Save As Type strip box at the bottom 
of the box, choose HTML Document or Web Page. Then choose Save.
+You can then attach the new HTML document instead of your Word document. Note 
that Word changes in inconsistent ways—if you see slightly
+different menu item names, please try them.
+To convert to plain text is almost the same—instead of HTML Document,
+choose Text Only or Text Document as the Save As Type.
+Your computer may also have a program to convert to PDF format. Select File, 
then Print. Scroll through available printers and select the
+PDF converter. Click on the Print button and enter a name for the PDF
+file when requested.
+See http://gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more
+about this issue.
+
+You can use these replies verbatim if you like, or you can personalize them
+or write your own. By all means construct a reply that fits your ideas and
+your personality—if the replies are personal and not all alike, that will 
make the
+campaign more effective.
+These replies are meant for individuals who send Word files. When you
+encounter an organization that imposes use of Word format, that calls for a
+different sort of reply; there you can raise issues of fairness that would not 
apply
+to an individual’s actions.
+Some recruiters ask for resumes in Word format. Ludicrously, some recruiters 
do this even when looking for someone for a free software job. (Anyone
+using those recruiters for free software jobs is not likely to get a competent
+employee.) To help change this practice, you can put a link to http://gnu.
+org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html into your resume, next to links
+to other formats of the resume. Anyone hunting for a Word version of the resume
+will probably read the page.
+This essay talks about Word attachments, since they are by far the most
+common case. However, the same issues apply with other proprietary formats,
+such as PowerPoint and Excel. Please feel free to adapt the replies to cover 
those
+as well.
+With our numbers, simply by asking, we can make a difference.
+
+Chapter 39: Thank You, Larry McVoy
+
+235
+
+39 Thank You, Larry McVoy
+For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He recently 
eliminated
+a major weakness of the free software community, by announcing the end of
+his campaign to entice free software projects to use and promote his nonfree
+software. Soon, Linux development will no longer use this program, and no
+longer spread the message that nonfree software is a good thing if it’s 
convenient.
+My gratitude is limited, since it was McVoy that created the problem in the
+first place. But I still appreciate his decision to clear it up.
+There are thousands of nonfree programs, and most merit no special attention, 
other than developing a free replacement. What made this program,
+BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach: inviting 
highprofile free software projects to use it, so as to attract other paying 
users.
+McVoy made the program available gratis to free software developers. This
+did not mean it was free software for them: they were privileged not to part 
with
+their money, but they still had to part with their freedom. They gave up the
+fundamental freedoms that define free software: freedom to run the program as
+you wish for any purpose, freedom to study and change the source code as you
+wish, freedom to make and redistribute copies, and freedom to publish modified
+versions.
+The free software movement has said, “Think of ‘free speech,’ not 
‘free beer’ ”
+since 1990. McVoy said the opposite; he invited developers to focus on the lack
+of monetary price, instead of on freedom. A free software activist would 
dismiss
+this suggestion, but those in our community who value technical advantage above
+freedom and community were susceptible to it.
+McVoy’s great triumph was the adoption of this program for Linux 
development. No free software project is more visible than Linux. It is the 
kernel of the
+GNU/Linux operating system, an essential component, and users often mistake
+it for the entire system. As McVoy surely planned, the use of his program in
+Linux development was powerful publicity for it.
+It was also, whether intentionally or not, a powerful political PR campaign,
+telling the free software community that freedom-denying software is acceptable
+as long as it’s convenient. If we had taken that attitude towards Unix in 
1984,
+where would we be today? Nowhere. If we had accepted using Unix, instead of
+setting out to replace it, nothing like the GNU/Linux system would exist.
+Of course, the Linux developers had practical reasons for what they did. I
+won’t argue with those reasons; they surely know what’s convenient for 
them.
+But they did not count, or did not value, how this would affect their 
freedom—or
+the rest of the community’s efforts.
+Copyright c 2005 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2005. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+236
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+A free kernel, even a whole free operating system, is not sufficient to use 
your
+computer in freedom; we need free software for everything else, too. Free 
applications, free drivers, free BIOS: some of those projects face large 
obstacles—the
+need to reverse engineer formats or protocols or pressure companies to document
+them, or to work around or face down patent threats, or to compete with a 
network effect. Success will require firmness and determination. A better 
kernel is
+desirable, to be sure, but not at the expense of weakening the impetus to 
liberate
+the rest of the software world.
+When the use of his program became controversial, McVoy responded with
+distraction. For instance, he promised to release it as free software if the 
company
+went out of business. Alas, that does no good as long as the company remains in
+business. Linux developers responded by saying, “We’ll switch to a free 
program
+when you develop a better one.” This was an indirect way of saying, “We 
made
+the mess, but we won’t clean it up.”
+Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a nonfree program 
acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free alternative. Finally
+Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free program, so Linux developers
+would no longer need to use a nonfree program.
+McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home and
+take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by free software
+projects, and Linux developers will move to other software. The program they
+no longer use will remain unethical as long as it is nonfree, but they will no
+longer promote it, nor by using it teach others to give freedom low priority. 
We
+can begin to forget about that program.
+We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Nonfree programs
+are dangerous to you and to your community. Don’t let them get a place in 
your
+life.
+
+Part VII:
+An Assessment and a Look Ahead
+
+Chapter 40: Computing “Progress”: Good and Bad
+
+239
+
+40 Computing “Progress”: Good and Bad
+Bradley Horowitz of Yahoo proposed here1 that every object in our world have
+a unique number so that your cell phone could record everything you do—even
+which cans you picked up while in the supermarket.
+If the phone is like today’s phones, it will use proprietary software: 
software
+controlled by the companies that developed it, not by its users. Those 
companies
+will ensure that your phone makes the information it collects about you 
available
+to the phone company’s database (let’s call it Big Brother) and probably 
to other
+companies.
+In the UK of the future, as New Labour would have it, those companies will
+surely turn this information over to the police. If your phone reports you 
bought
+a wooden stick and a piece of poster board, the phone company’s system will
+deduce that you may be planning a protest, and report you automatically to the
+police so they can accuse you of “terrorism.”
+In the UK, it is literally an offense to be suspect—more precisely, to 
possess
+any object in circumstances that create a “reasonable suspicion” that you 
might
+use it in certain criminal ways. Your phone will give the police plenty of 
opportunities to suspect you so they can charge you with having been suspected 
by
+them. Similar things will happen in China, where Yahoo has already given the
+government all the information it needed to imprison a dissident; it 
subsequently
+asked for our understanding on the excuse that it was “just following 
orders.”
+Horowitz would like cell phones to tag information automatically, based on
+knowing when you participate in an event or meeting. That means the phone
+company will also know precisely whom you meet. That information will also be
+interesting to governments, such as those of the UK and China, that cut corners
+on human rights.
+I do not much like Horowitz’s vision of total surveillance. Rather, I 
envision
+a world in which our computers never collect, or release, any information about
+us except when we want them to.
+Nonfree software does other nasty things besides spying; it often implements
+digital handcuffs—features designed to restrict the users (also called DRM, 
for
+Digital Restrictions Management). These features control how you can access,
+copy, or move the files in your own computer.
+1
+
+Bradley Horowitz, “The Tech Lab: Bradley Horowitz,” BBC News,
+29 June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6252716.stm.
+
+Copyright c 2006, 2007 Richard Stallman
+The BBC invited me to write an article for their column series, The Tech Lab,
+and this is what I sent them. (It refers to a couple of other articles 
published in that
+series.) The BBC was ultimately unwilling to publish it with a 
copying-permission
+notice, so I published it on http://gnu.org, in 2007. This version of this 
essay is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+240
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+DRM is a common practice: Microsoft does it, Apple does it, Google does
+it, even the BBC’s iPlayer does it. Many governments, taking the side of 
these
+companies against the public, have made it illegal to tell others how to escape
+from the digital handcuffs. As a result, competition does nothing to check the
+practice: no matter how many proprietary alternatives you might have to choose
+from, they will all handcuff you just the same. If the computer knows where you
+are located, it can make DRM even worse: there are companies that would like
+to restrict what you can access based on your present location.
+My vision of the world is different. I would like to see a world in which all 
the
+software in our computers — in our desktop PCs, our laptops, our handhelds,
+our phones — is under our control and respects our freedom. In other words, a
+world where all software is free software.
+Free software, freedom-respecting software, means that every user of the
+program is free to get the program’s source code and change the program to
+do what she wants, and also free to give away or sell copies, either exact or
+modified. This means the users are in control. With the users in control of the
+software, nobody has power to impose nasty features on others.
+Even if you don’t exercise this control yourself, you are part of a society
+where others do. If you are not a programmer, other users of the program are.
+They will probably find and remove any nasty features, which might spy on
+or restrict you, and publish safe versions. You will have only to elect to use
+them—and since all other users will prefer them, that will usually happen 
with
+no effort on your part.
+Charles Stross envisioned computers that permanently record everything that
+we see and hear.2 Those records could be very useful, as long as Big Brother
+doesn’t see and hear all of them. Today’s cell phones are already capable 
of
+listening to their users without informing them, at the request of the police,
+the phone company, or anyone that knows the requisite commands. As long as
+phones use nonfree software, controlled by its developers and not by the users,
+we must expect this to get worse. Only free software enables computer-using
+citizens to resist totalitarian surveillance.
+Dave Winer’s article3 suggested that Mr. Gates should send a copy of Windows 
Vista to Alpha Centauri. I understand the feeling, but sending just one
+won’t solve our problem here on Earth. Windows is designed to spy on users
+and restrict them. We should collect all the copies of Windows, and of MacOS
+and iPlayer for the same reason, and send them to Alpha Centauri at the slowest
+possible speed. Or just erase them.
+
+2
+3
+
+Charles Stross, “The Tech Lab: Charles Stross,” BBC News, 10 July 2007,
+http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6287126.stm.
+Dave Winer, “The Tech Lab: Dave Winer,” BBC News, 14 June 2007,
+http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6748103.stm.
+
+Chapter 41: Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+
+241
+
+41 Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+The free software movement aims for a social change: to make all software free
+so that all software users are free and can be part of a community of 
cooperation.
+Every nonfree program gives its developer unjust power over the users. Our goal
+is to put an end to that injustice.
+The road to freedom is a long road. It will take many steps and many years
+to reach a world in which it is normal for software users to have freedom. Some
+of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice. Some of them become easier if 
we
+make compromises with people that have different goals.
+Thus, the Free Software Foundation makes compromises—even major ones.
+For instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of the
+GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) so that major companies would contribute 
to and distribute GPLv3-covered software and thus bring some patents
+under the effect of these provisions.
+The Lesser GPL’s purpose is a compromise: we use it on certain chosen free
+libraries to permit their use in nonfree programs because we think that legally
+prohibiting this would only drive developers to proprietary libraries instead. 
We
+accept and install code in GNU programs to make them work together with
+common nonfree programs, and we document and publicize this in ways that
+encourage users of the latter to install the former, but not vice versa. We
+support specific campaigns we agree with, even when we don’t fully agree with
+the groups behind them.
+But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our community are 
willing to make them. For instance, we endorse only the GNU/Linux
+distributions that have policies not to include nonfree software or lead users 
to
+install it. To endorse nonfree distributions would be a ruinous compromise.
+Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the long
+term. That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the level of actions.
+At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce the
+premises we seek to change. Our goal is a world in which software users are
+free, but as yet most computer users do not even recognize freedom as an issue.
+They have taken up “consumer” values, which means they judge any program
+only on practical characteristics such as price and convenience.
+Dale Carnegie’s classic self-help book, How to Win Friends and Influence
+People, advises that the most effective way to persuade someone to do something
+is to present arguments that appeal to his values. There are ways we can appeal
+Copyright c 2008, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2008. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+This chapter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 
United
+States License. To view a copy of this license, visit 
http://creativecommons.org/
+licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street,
+Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA.
+
+242
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+to the consumer values typical in our society. For instance, free software 
obtained
+gratis can save the user money. Many free programs are convenient and reliable,
+too. Citing those practical benefits has succeeded in persuading many users to
+adopt various free programs, some of which are now quite successful.
+If getting more people to use some free programs is as far as you aim to go,
+you might decide to keep quiet about the concept of freedom, and focus only on
+the practical advantages that make sense in terms of consumer values. That’s
+what the term “open source” and its associated rhetoric do.
+That approach can get us only part way to the goal of freedom. People who
+use free software only because it is convenient will stick with it only as 
long as
+it is convenient. And they will see no reason not to use convenient proprietary
+programs along with it.
+The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer values,
+and this affirms and reinforces them. That’s why we do not support open 
source.
+To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do more than
+get people to use some free software. We need to spread the idea of judging
+software (and other things) on “citizen values,” based on whether it 
respects
+users’ freedom and community, not just in terms of convenience. Then people
+will not fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive,
+convenient feature.
+To promote citizen values, we have to talk about them and show how they
+are the basis of our actions. We must reject the Dale Carnegie compromise that
+would influence their actions by endorsing their consumer values.
+This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all—we can and we
+do. It becomes a problem only when the practical advantage steals the scene
+and pushes freedom into the background. Therefore, when we cite the practical
+advantages of free software, we reiterate frequently that those are just 
additional,
+secondary reasons to prefer it.
+It’s not enough to make our words accord with our ideals; our actions have
+to accord with them too. So we must also avoid compromises that involve doing
+or legitimizing the things we aim to stamp out.
+For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
+GNU/Linux if you include some nonfree programs. This could mean a cute
+nonfree application that will catch some user’s eye, or a nonfree programming
+platform such as Java (formerly) or the Flash runtime (still), or a nonfree
+device driver that enables support for certain hardware models.
+These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal. If you distribute 
nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will find it hard to say,
+“Nonfree software is an injustice, a social problem, and we must put an end 
to
+it.” And even if you do continue to say those words, your actions will 
undermine
+them.
+The issue here is not whether people should be able or allowed to install 
nonfree software; a general-purpose system enables and allows users to do 
whatever
+they wish. The issue is whether we guide users towards nonfree software. What
+they do on their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we
+
+Chapter 41: Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+
+243
+
+direct them towards, is ours. We must not direct the users towards proprietary
+software as if it were a solution, because proprietary software is the problem.
+A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others. It can distort
+your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance. If you have certain values,
+but your actions imply other, conflicting values, you are likely to change your
+values or your actions so as to resolve the contradiction. Thus, projects that
+argue only from practical advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree
+software, nearly always shy away from even suggesting that nonfree software
+is unethical. For their participants, as well as for the public, they reinforce
+consumer values. We must reject these compromises if we wish to keep our
+values straight.
+If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal of freedom, 
look at the FSF’s resources area. It lists hardware and machine 
configurations that work with free software, totally free GNU/Linux distros to 
install, and
+thousands of free software packages that work in a 100 percent free software 
environment. If you want to help the community stay on the road to freedom, one
+important way is to publicly uphold citizen values. When people are discussing
+what is good or bad, or what to do, cite the values of freedom and community
+and argue from them.
+A road that lets you go faster is no improvement if it leads to the wrong
+place. Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal, but beware of
+compromises that lead away from the goal.
+
+Chapter 42: Overcoming Social Inertia
+
+245
+
+42 Overcoming Social Inertia
+Almost two decades have passed since the combination of GNU and Linux first
+made it possible to use a PC in freedom. We have come a long way since
+then. Now you can even buy a laptop with GNU/Linux preinstalled from more
+than one hardware vendor—although the systems they ship are not entirely free
+software. So what holds us back from total success?
+The main obstacle to the triumph of software freedom is social inertia. It
+exists in many forms, and you have surely seen some of them. Examples include
+devices that only work on Windows and commercial web sites accessible only
+with Windows. If you value short-term convenience instead of freedom, you
+might consider these reason enough to use Windows. Most companies currently
+run Windows, so students who think short-term want to learn how to use it and
+ask their schools to teach it. Schools teach Windows, produce graduates that
+are used to using Windows, and this encourages businesses to use Windows.
+Microsoft actively nurtures this inertia: it encourages schools to inculcate
+dependency on Windows, and contracts to set up web sites that then turn out
+to work only with Internet Explorer.
+A few years ago, Microsoft ads argued that Windows was cheaper to run
+than GNU/Linux. Their comparisons were debunked, but it is worth noting the
+deeper flaw in their argument, the implicit premise which cites a form of 
social
+inertia: “Currently, more technical people know Windows than GNU/Linux.”
+People who value their freedom would not give it up to save money, but many
+business executives believe ideologically that everything they possess, even 
their
+freedom, should be for sale.
+Social inertia consists of people who have given in to social inertia. When you
+surrender to social inertia, you become part of the pressure it exerts on 
others;
+when you resist it, you reduce it. We conquer social inertia by identifying it,
+and resolving not to be part of it.
+Here a weakness holds our community back: most GNU/Linux users have
+never even heard the ideas of freedom that motivated the development of GNU,
+so they still judge matters based on short-term convenience rather than on 
their
+freedom. This makes them vulnerable to being led by the nose by social inertia,
+so that they become part of the inertia.
+To build our community’s strength to resist, we need to talk about free
+software and freedom—not merely about the practical benefits that open source
+supporters cite. As more people recognize what they need to do to overcome the
+inertia, we will make more progress.
+Copyright c 2007, 2009 Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2007. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+Chapter 43: Freedom or Power?
+
+247
+
+43 Freedom or Power?
+Written by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard Stallman.
+The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of 
ourselves.
+—William Hazlitt
+In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of software. 
We
+formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary for a good way 
of
+life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, 
cooperation,
+and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify the freedoms that a
+program’s users need so that they can cooperate in a community.
+We stand for freedom for programmers as well as for other users. Most of
+us are programmers, and we want freedom for ourselves as well as for you. But
+each of us uses software written by others, and we want freedom when using
+that software, not just when using our own code. We stand for freedom for all
+users, whether they program often, occasionally, or not at all.
+However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the “freedom to
+choose any license you want for software you write.” We reject this because 
it
+is really a form of power, not a freedom.
+This oft overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make
+decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions that
+affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to
+uphold real freedom.
+Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power. Copyright law today
+grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules
+to impose on everyone else—a relatively small number of people make the basic
+software decisions for all users, typically by denying their freedom. When 
users
+lack the freedoms that define free software, they can’t tell what the 
software
+is doing, can’t check for back doors, can’t monitor possible viruses and 
worms,
+can’t find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the 
reports,
+even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can’t fix it; they have to 
wait for the
+developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn’t quite what they 
need,
+they are stuck with it. They can’t help each other improve it.
+Proprietary software developers are often businesses. We in the free software
+movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what happens when
+a software business has the “freedom” to impose arbitrary rules on the 
users
+of software. Microsoft is an egregious example of how denying users’ freedoms
+Copyright c 2001, 2009 Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard Stallman
+This essay was originally published on http://gnu.org, in 2001. This version is
+part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 
2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+248
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+can lead to direct harm, but it is not the only example. Even when there is
+no monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A choice of masters is not
+freedom.
+Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on the
+interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and
+fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire 
developed
+world now needs and uses software, so software developers now control the way 
it
+lives, does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and 
political
+issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of choice (for developers
+only).”
+If “code is law,”1 then the real question we face is: who should control 
the
+code you use—you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled to control the
+software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of free software.
+We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use; however,
+that is not what today’s law says. Current copyright law places us in the 
position
+of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The ethical 
response to
+this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the Bill of 
Rights was
+supposed to exercise government power by guaranteeing each citizen’s 
freedoms.
+That is what the GNU General Public License is for: it puts you in control of
+your usage of the software while protecting you from others who would like to
+take control of your decisions.
+As more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that they
+too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms we stand for,
+just as more and more users have come to appreciate the practical value of the
+free software we have developed.
+
+1
+
+William J. Mitchell, City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn (Cambridge,
+Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), p. 111, as quoted by Lawrence Lessig in Code and
+Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006), p. 5.
+
+Appendix A: A Note on Software
+
+249
+
+Appendix A: A Note on Software
+Written by Richard E. Buckman and Joshua Gay.
+This section is intended for people who have little or no knowledge of the
+technical aspects of computer science. It is not necessary to read this 
section to
+understand the essays and speeches presented in this book; however, it may be
+helpful to those readers not familiar with some of the jargon that comes with
+programming and computer science.
+A computer programmer writes software, or computer programs. A program
+is more or less a recipe with commands to tell the computer what to do in order
+to carry out certain tasks. You are more than likely familiar with many 
different
+programs: your Web browser, your word processor, your email client, and the
+like.
+A program usually starts out as source code. This higher-level set of commands 
is written in a programming language such as C or Java. After that,
+a tool known as a compiler translates this to a lower-level language known as
+assembly language. Another tool known as an assembler breaks the assembly
+code down to the final stage of machine language—the lowest level—which the
+computer understands natively.
+
+For example, consider the “hello world” program, a common first program for
+people learning C, which (when compiled and executed) prints “Hello World!”
+on the screen.1
+int main(){
+printf(’’Hello World!’’);
+return 0;
+}
+1
+
+In other programming languages, such as Scheme, the Hello World program is
+usually not your first program. In Scheme you often start with a program like 
this:
+(define (factorial n)
+(if (= n 0)
+1
+(* n (factorial (- n 1)))))
+This computes the factorial of a number; that is, running (factorial 5)would
+output 120, which is computed by doing 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 * 1.
+
+This note was originally published in 2002, in the first edition. This version 
is part
+of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed.
+(Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+250
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+In the Java programming language the same program would be written like
+this:
+public class hello {
+public static void main(String args[]) {
+System.out.println(’’Hello World!’’);
+}
+}
+
+However, in machine language, a small section of it may look similar to this:
+1100011110111010100101001001001010101110
+0110101010011000001111001011010101111101
+0100111111111110010110110000000010100100
+0100100001100101011011000110110001101111
+0010000001010111011011110111001001101100
+0110010000100001010000100110111101101111
+
+The above form of machine language is the most basic representation known
+as binary. All data in computers is made up of a series of 0-or-1 values, but a
+person would have much difficulty understanding the data. To make a simple
+change to the binary, one would have to have an intimate knowledge of how
+a particular computer interprets the machine language. This could be feasible
+for small programs like the above examples, but any interesting program would
+involve an exhausting effort to make simple changes.
+As an example, imagine that we wanted to make a change to our “Hello
+World” program written in C so that instead of printing “Hello World” in 
English
+it prints it in French. The change would be simple; here is the new program:
+int main() {
+printf(’’Bonjour, monde!’’);
+return 0;
+}
+
+It is safe to say that one can easily infer how to change the program written
+in the Java programming language in the same way. However, even many 
programmers would not know where to begin if they wanted to change the binary
+representation. When we say “source code,” we do not mean machine language
+that only computers can understand—we are speaking of higher-level languages
+such as C and Java. A few other popular programming languages are C++,
+Perl, and Python. Some are harder than others to understand and program in,
+but they are all much easier to work with compared to the intricate machine
+language they get turned into after the programs are compiled and assembled.
+Another important concept is understanding what an operating system is.
+An operating system is the software that handles input and output, memory
+allocation, and task scheduling. Generally one considers common or useful 
programs such as the Graphical User Interface (GUI) to be a part of the 
operating
+system. The GNU/Linux operating system contains a both GNU and non-GNU
+software, and a kernel called Linux. The kernel handles low-level tasks that
+applications depend upon such as input/output and task scheduling. The GNU
+software comprises much of the rest of the operating system, including GCC, a
+
+Appendix A: A Note on Software
+
+251
+
+general-purpose compiler for many languages; GNU Emacs, an extensible text
+editor with many, many features; GNOME, the GNU desktop; GNU libc, a
+library that all programs other than the kernel must use in order to 
communicate with the kernel; and Bash, the GNU command interpreter that reads 
your
+command lines. Many of these programs were pioneered by Richard Stallman
+early on in the GNU Project and come with any modern GNU/Linux operating
+system.
+It is important to understand that even if you cannot change the source code
+for a given program, or directly use all these tools, it is relatively easy to 
find
+someone who can. Therefore, by having the source code to a program you are
+usually given the power to change, fix, customize, and learn about a program—
+this is a power that you do not have if you are not given the source code. 
Source
+code is one of the requirements that makes a piece of software free. The other
+requirements will be found along with the philosophy and ideas behind them in
+this collection.
+
+Appendix B: Translations of the Term “Free Software”
+
+253
+
+Appendix B: Translations of the Term
+“Free Software”
+The following is a list of recommended unambiguous translations of the term
+“free software” into various languages:
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+
+Afrikaans: vrye sagteware
+Albanian: software i lir¨e
+�
+� ����
+Arabic: ��� ��
+�� �
+Belarusian: свабоднае праграмнае 
забесьпячэньне
+Bulgarian: свободен софтуер
+Catalan: programari lliure
+
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+−
+
+Chinese: 自由软件 (simplified), 自由軟體 (traditional)
+Czech: svobodn´
+y software
+Croatian/Serbian: slobodni softver
+Danish: fri software or frit programmel
+Dutch: vrije software
+Esperanto: libera programaro
+Estonian: vaba tarkvara
+Farsi: ‫��ما��ار ا ٓزاد‬
+Finnish: vapaa ohjelmisto
+French: logiciel libre
+German: freie Software
+Greek: ελεύθερο λογισμικό
+Hungarian: szabad szoftver
+Icelandic: frj´
+als hugb´
+unaður
+Ido: libera programaro
+Indonesian: perangkat lunak bebas
+Interlingua: libere programmage or libere programmario
+Irish: bog earra´ı saoire
+Italian: software libero
+
+The most current list of translations is maintained at http://www.gnu.org/
+philosophy/fs-translations.html. Please e-mail any additional translations to
address@hidden
+This version of the list is part of Free Software, Free Society: Selected 
Essays of
+Richard M. Stallman, 2nd ed. (Boston: GNU Press, 2010).
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire chapter are permitted 
worldwide,
+without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+
+254
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+− Japanese: 自由なソフトウェア or フリーソフトウェア
+− Lithuanian: laisva programin˙e ☞✐ranga
+− Malay: perisian bebas
+− Norwegian: fri programvare
+− Polish: wolne oprogramowanie
+− Portuguese: software livre
+− Romanian: software liber
+− Russian: свободное программное обеспечение
+− Sardinian: software liberu
+− Serbian/Croatian: слободни софтвер
+− Slovak: slobodn´
+y softv´er
+− Slovenian: prosto programje
+− Spanish: software libre
+− Swahili: Programu huru za Kompyuta
+− Swedish: fri programvara, fri mjukvara
+− Tagalog: malayang software
+− Tamil: கடடறற ெெனெொொரள
+− Turkish: ¨
+ozg¨
+ur yazılım
+− Ukrainian: вільне програмне забезпечення
+− Welsh: meddalwedd rydd
+− Zulu: Isoftware Ekhululekile
+
+Index
+
+255
+
+Index
+1
+1984, George Orwell . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 210
+
+6
+68000-class hardware . . . . . . . . . . 8, 11, 28
+
+A
+abbreviations, patents on . . . . . . . . . . . 149
+AbiWord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
+Ada compiler, GNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 82
+Ada language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+Adobe Flash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227–228
+Affero General Public License (AGPL),
+GNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 213
+AI (Artificial Intelligence) Lab, MIT (see
+also MIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 28, 34
+Air Force, US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 59
+AJAX request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
+Alix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+Alpha Centauri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+Amazon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 210, 227
+Analog Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+Animal Farm, George Orwell . . . . . . . 210
+Apache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
+Apache License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 187
+Apple (see also DRM) . . . . 108, 146, 209
+Apple, iPhone (see also cell phones)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227–229
+Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
+ASCII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 231–232
+Association of American Publishers (see
+also copyright) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+AT&T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
+Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+
+B
+Barr, Joe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
+BASH (Bourne Again Shell), GNU . . 14,
+16–17, 130, 185
+beamer class, TEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
+Beethoven, Ludwig van . . . . . . . . 157–158
+Berne Convention (see also copyright)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
+Big Brother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239–240
+BitKeeper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
+
+BitTorrent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
+Bono, Congressman Sonny . . . . . . . . . . 116
+Bono, Congresswoman Mary . . . . . . . . 116
+Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 107
+BSD licenses (see also both “BSD-style”
+and GPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 93, 223
+“BSD-style,” problematic term . . . . . . 93
+Bush, President George W. . . . . . . . . . 213
+Bushnell, Michael (now Thomas) . . . . 18
+Business Software Alliance (BSA) (see
+also Software Publishers
+Association (SPA)) . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
+
+C
+C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 48
+C compiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
+C library . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16, 17, 18, 217
+C programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 167, 217
+C++, language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+CAFTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+Caldera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
+call to action, beware of nonfree
+programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
+call to action, beware of ruinous
+compromises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
+call to action, block treacherous
+computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
+call to action, boycott products with
+DRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
+call to action, contribute to GNU . . . . 9,
+29–30
+call to action, cooperate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
+call to action, copyleft your software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
+call to action, defend progress of science
+from copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
+call to action, develop more free software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
+call to action, do not authorize software
+patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
+call to action, do not surrender freedom
+in author’s name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
+call to action, donate . . . . . . . . 29–30, 241
+call to action, fight for freedom . . . . . . 74
+call to action, future challenges . . . 19–23
+call to action, initial announcement . . 26
+
+256
+call to action, insist on free software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
+call to action, legalize noncommercial
+copying and sharing of all published
+works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
+call to action, price deception . . 228–229
+call to action, promote free
+documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
+call to action, put an end to Word
+attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231–233
+call to action, raise funds . . . . . . . . 65, 66
+call to action, release free software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60
+call to action, resist illusory temptations
+of proprietary software . . . . . . . . . 224
+call to action, SaaS threats . . . . . 212–213
+call to action, talk about freedom . . . 22,
+245
+call to action, teach others to value
+freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 88
+call to action, upgrade to GPL version 3
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185–187
+call to action, uphold citizen values
+publicly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
+call to action, use copyleft . . . . . . . . . . 131
+call to action, use correct terminology
+(see also terminology) . . . . 6, 14, 75,
+77–82, 84, 91, 93–102
+call to action, use only free software in
+schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57–58
+call to action, write free documentation
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
+Carnegie Mellon University . . . . . . . . . . 18
+Carnegie, Dale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+Case, Steve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
+cell phones (see also both OpenMoko and
+Apple) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 239–240
+Chaosnet (see also MIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
+Cheney, Dick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
+China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
+citizen values, consumer values v.
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241–242
+citizen values, convenience v. . . . . 14, 20,
+60, 73, 87–88, 242, 245
+citizen values, cooperation . . . 40, 47–48,
+56
+citizen values, distortion of . . . . . . . . . 243
+citizen values, future challenges to
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19–22
+citizen values, Golden Rule . . . . . . . 26, 32
+citizen values, open source v. free
+software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 83
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+citizen values, production v. freedom and
+way of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 90
+citizen values, proprietary manuals . . . 62
+citizen values, proprietary software and
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 54
+citizen values, publicly upholding . . . 243
+citizen values, schools’ social mission
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
+citizen values, social inertia v. . . . . . . 245
+Clinton administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+Clipper chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+“closed,” erroneous use of term . . . . . . 93
+“cloud computing,” avoid use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 212
+Cohen, Jerry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
+Commerce Department, US . . . . . . . . . 228
+commercial software (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82, 94
+commercial software, to be distinguished
+from proprietary software . . . . . . . 82
+commercial use and development . . 4, 22
+“commercial,” problematic use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
+Common Lisp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
+communism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
+Community ConneXion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
+“compensation,” false assumptions
+connected to term. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
+competition, impact on . . . . . . . 32, 34, 37
+competition, inevitability of . . . . . . . . . 54
+Compress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
+Compress program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+compromises, avoiding ruinous
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241–243
+compromises, GPL patent provisions
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+compromises, LGPL and . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+Constitution, authors’ natural rights and
+US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
+Constitution, copyright and US
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111–117, 122
+Constitution, copyright law, trademark
+law, patent law, and US . . . . . . . . . 90
+Constitution, premise of author
+supremacy and US. . . . . . . . . . . 55–56
+Constitution, US . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+Consumer Broadband and Digital
+Television Promotion Act
+(CBDTPA) . . . . . . . 94, 107, 118, 207
+“consumer,” problematic use of term
+(see also “open source”) . . . . . . . . 94
+“content,” problematic use of term . . . 95
+
+Index
+
+copyleft (see also copyright) . . . . vi, 4–5,
+127–128, 129–131, 165–169
+copyleft, and GPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 171
+copyleft, FDL and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
+copyleft, GPL and . . . . . . . . . . . 12–13, 185
+copyleft, modified versions . . . 10, 12–13,
+169, 174–175, 189–190
+copyleft, X Consortium opposition to
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–224
+copylefted software (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 127–128, 223–224
+copyright (see also both copyleft and
+DMCA) . . . . . . . . . 4, 5, 44, 50–51, 55
+copyright, and/or copyright law, as
+distinguished from trademarks and
+patents and/or trademark law and
+patent law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89–91
+copyright, Association of American
+Publishers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+copyright, Berne Convention . . . . . . . . . 79
+copyright, “copyright bargain”
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112–114, 118–120
+copyright, “creator” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
+copyright, difference between patents
+and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157–158
+copyright, digital technology and . . . . 37
+copyright, disregard for US
+Constitution’s view of . . . . . . . . . . 117
+copyright, duration of term of
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115–116, 119
+copyright, enforcement measures . . . . . 37
+copyright, erroneous concept of
+maximizing one output . . . . . . . . 114
+copyright, erroneous concept of
+maximizing publishers’ power . . 115
+copyright, erroneous concept of “striking
+a balance” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112–113
+copyright, fair use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115, 119
+copyright, fair use and libraries . . . . . 117
+copyright, false assumptions related to
+“compensation” for authors . . . . . 94
+copyright, monopoly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
+copyright, “protection” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
+copyright, public domain software and
+(see also public domain software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78–79
+Correa, President Rafael . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+Costa Rica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+“creator,” erroneous use of term . . . . . 95
+Cygnus Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+
+257
+
+D
+da Silva, President Luis In´
+acio Lula
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+DADVSI (see also both DMCA and
+DRM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+“damage,” erroneous use of term . . . . . 38
+de Icaza, Miguel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+Debian GNU/Linux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
+DeCSS (see also both DMCA and DRM)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+Defective by Design (see also DRM)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87, 108, 118, 207, 227
+Deluxe Distributions, FSF . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+Devedjian, Minister Patrick . . . . . . . . . 139
+developers, (see also programmers) . . . 9,
+18
+developers, and creativity and
+entitlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
+developers, collaboration between
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16–17
+developers, copyright law favors
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247–248
+developers, funding for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+developers, GNU Project . . . . . . . . . 15, 17
+developers, incentive for . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+developers, manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
+developers, obligations of users to . . . . 53
+developers, proprietary software . . . . . 12,
+73, 93, 101
+developers, solid values for free software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
+developers, term “vendor” and . . . . . . 102
+developers, to copyleft or not to
+copyleft? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–225
+developers, traps for . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 74
+developers, universities . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60
+development, applying GPL . . . . . . . . 183
+development, commercial software . . . 82
+development, contributions and
+donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 26, 65
+development, custom adaptation . . 49–50
+development, developer control . . . . . 228
+development, funding for . . . . . . . . 13–14,
+35–36, 52–53
+development, fundraising . . . . . . . . . 10, 65
+development, obstruction of . . . . . . 50–51
+development, patents . . . . . . 157–158, 229
+development, private software . . . . . . . . 82
+“digital goods,” problematic term . . . . 95
+Digital Millennium Copyright Act
+(DMCA) (see also DMCA, “Right
+
+258
+to Read,” fair use, DRM, and
+libraries) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107–108
+“Digital Rights Management,” avoid use
+of term (see also DRM) . . . . 96, 227
+Disney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 118
+DMCA (see also “Right to Read,” fair
+use, DRM, and libraries) . . . . . . . 74,
+107–108, 206
+DMCA, and fair use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+DMCA, GPL version 3 and . . . . . . . . . 186
+DMCA, publishers and . . . . . . . . 116, 124
+documentation (see also both FDL and
+manuals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–22, 61–63
+DRM, and Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, and BBC iPlayer . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, and Google . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, and MacOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, and Microsoft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, and Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+DRM, call it “Digital Restrictions
+Management” . . . . 96, 124–125, 186,
+209, 227, 239–240
+DRM, GPL version 3 and . . . . . . . . . . 186
+DRM, open source and . . . . . . . . . . . 86–87
+DRM, treacherous computing and . . 205
+DRM, Vista’s main purpose . . . . . . . . 108
+DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
+
+E
+e-books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117–118, 124, 227
+e-commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+ECMAScript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
+Economist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
+“ecosystem,” erroneous description of
+free software community . . . . . . . . 96
+Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+ed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+education, free software in . . . . 30, 57–60
+Ellison, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
+Emacs, GNU. . . . . . 11–14, 17, 26, 27, 52,
+130, 149, 212
+Empire game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 27
+Enron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
+European Parliament . . . . . . . . . . 101, 160
+European Patent Office . . . . . . . . 140, 161
+European Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 118
+European Union, proposed European
+Union software patents directive
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 139
+Exxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+F
+Facebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+fair use (see also copyright) . . . 115–119,
+174
+FBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 228
+FCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
+FDL (see also both manuals and
+documentation) . . . 13, 128, 193–201
+FDL, introduction to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
+Felten, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+FFT (fast Fourier transform) . . . . . . . 147
+FLAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
+Flash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
+Flickr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+“for free,” erroneous use of term . . . . . 96
+Fortran. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
+four freedoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+Fourth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
+Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal . . . . . . . . 55, 111
+Fox, Brian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 139
+Frank, Congressman Barney . . . . . . . . 117
+Free Documentation License (FDL),
+GNU (see also FDL, manuals, and
+documentation) . . . . . . . . . . . 193–201
+free software (see also free software, four
+freedoms, citizen values, selling, and
+software) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3–6, 77–78
+Free Software Foundation (FSF) (see
+also FSF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13–14
+free software movement (see also GNU
+Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83–87
+“Free Software Song” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
+free software, and export control
+regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+free software, essential difference between
+open source and . . . . . . 23, 78, 83–84
+free software, four freedoms . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+free software, to be distinguished from
+noncommercial software . . . . . . . . . . 4
+“free software,” common
+misunderstandings of . . . . . . . . 84–86
+“free software,” unambiguous
+translations of . . . . . 10, 84, 253–254
+Free Trade Area of the Americas
+(FTAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+Free University Compiler Kit (VUCK)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+“freely available,” erroneous use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
+freeware (see also software) . . . . . . 35, 97
+
+Index
+“freeware,” erroneous use of term . . . . 81
+FSF, and selling GNU manuals . . . . . . 61
+FSF, copyright on software . . . . . . . . . . 81
+FSF, Deluxe Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+FSF, fundraising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 31
+FSF, how you can help . . . 31, 52–53, 65,
+241
+FSF, on installing proprietary software
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
+FSF, programmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52–53
+FSF, resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
+FSF, software development . . . . . . . . . . 81
+FSF, universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
+
+G
+games, Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 27
+games, GPL and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
+games, patents and . . . . . . . . . . . . 149–150
+games, price deception and . . . . . . . . . 228
+games, SaaS and multiplayer . . . . . . . 211
+games, Unix compatibility and . . . . . . . 16
+Gates, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+GDB General Public License . . . . . . . 165
+General Public License (GPL), GNU
+(see also GPL) . . . . . . . . . . . . 171–183
+GIF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 148
+GIMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 212
+“give away software,” misleading use of
+term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 97
+GLAMP (GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL
+and PHP) system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
+Global Patronage (see also DRM and
+copyright) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
+GNOME (GNU Network Object Model
+Environment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 20
+GNU (see also both software and GNU)
+. . . . 9, 19, 59, 80–81, 143, 156, 165,
+217, 241
+GNU CC General Public License . . . 165
+GNU Help Wanted list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
+“GNU Manifesto” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27–36
+GNU Project (see also GNU) . . . . . 7–23
+GNU, acronym . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+GNU, advertising for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
+GNU, GCC . . . . 11, 14, 40, 129–130, 185
+GNU, GCJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216–217
+GNU, GDB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17–18
+GNU, GDB General Public License
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
+GNU, GIMP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 212
+
+259
+GNU, GLAMP (GNU, Linux, Apache,
+MySQL and PHP) system . . . . . . . 98
+GNU, GNOME (GNU Network Object
+Model Environment) . . . . . . . . 17, 20
+GNU, GNU Ada compiler . . . . . . . . 59, 82
+GNU, GNU Affero General Public
+License (AGPL) . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 213
+GNU, GNU BASH (Bourne Again Shell)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16–17, 130, 185
+GNU, GNU C compiler (see also GNU,
+GCC) . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 32, 40, 52, 129
+GNU, GNU C Library. . . . 14, 16–17, 17,
+167, 217
+GNU, GNU C++ compiler . . . . . . 127, 129
+GNU, GNU CC General Public License
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
+GNU, GNU Classpath . . . . . . . . . 216–217
+GNU, GNU compiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+GNU, GNU Emacs . . . 11–14, 17, 26, 27,
+52, 130, 149, 212
+GNU, GNU Free Documentation License
+(FDL) (see also FDL, manuals, and
+documentation) . . . . . . . . . . . 193–201
+GNU, GNU ftp distribution site . . . . . 12
+GNU, GNU General Public License
+(GPL) (see also GPL) . . . . . 171–183
+GNU, GNU Hurd . . . . . . . . . . . . 18–19, 80
+GNU, GNU Lesser General Public
+License (LGPL) (see also LGPL)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–191
+GNU, GNU libraries . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 130
+GNU, GNU Make . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+GNU, “GNU Manifesto” . . . . . . . . . 27–36
+GNU, GNU manuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
+GNU, GNU Objective C . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
+GNU, GNU operating system (see also
+both software and GNU) . . . . . . . . 80
+GNU, GNU Privacy Guard (GPG) . . 17,
+207
+GNU, GNU programs (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 80, 241
+GNU, GNU Project. . . . 7–23, 27, 61, 65,
+73, 75, 98, 213, 224
+GNU, GNU Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
+GNU, GNU Readline . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 130
+GNU, GNU software (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 27–28, 29
+GNU, GNU software, as distinguished
+from the GNU system . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+GNU, GNU tar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+GNU, GNU Task List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
+
+260
+GNU, GNU/Linux v. “Linux” (see also
+both open source and terminology)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73–75
+GNU, Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 20
+GNU, how you can help . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+GNU, initial announcement . . . . . . 25–26
+GNU, motivation to write . . . . . . . . . . . 28
+GNU, objections to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31–36
+GNU, operating system parts . . . . . 9, 11,
+18, 25, 27
+GNU, programs developed to cope with
+specific threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+GNU, user support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
+GNU/Linux v. “Linux” (see also both
+open source and terminology)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73–75
+Golden Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 28, 32
+Google Docs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 219
+GPG (GNU Privacy Guard) . . . . 17, 207
+GPL . . . . . 13, 16, 127–128, 130, 171–183,
+248
+GPL, and Microsoft license . . . . . . . . . 160
+GPL, BSD license and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
+GPL, copyleft and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12–13
+GPL, GPL-covered software (see also
+software) . . . . . . . . . . 80, 85, 167, 185
+GPL, high or low fees and . . . . . . . . . . . 67
+GPL, introduction to . . vi, 165–167, 166,
+168
+GPL, “open source” and . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
+GPL, patent license . . . . . . . . . . . . 179–181
+GPL, patent-provisions compromise
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+GPL, releasing JavaScript programs
+under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221–222
+GPL, universities and . . . . . . . . . . . . 59–60
+GPL, use with GNU Affero General
+Public License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
+GPL, version 3, compatibility . . . . . . . 185
+GPL, version 3, limited patent
+protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
+GPL, version 3, why upgrade to
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185–187
+GPL-covered software (see also
+software) . . . . . . . . . . 80, 85, 167, 185
+Greasemonkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
+gzip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 145–148
+
+H
+“hacker,” actual meaning of term (see
+also “cracker”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 97
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+hackers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 23, 69, 88, 97
+Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 20
+Hatch, Senator Orrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
+Havel, Vaclav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
+Hazlitt, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
+HDTV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
+Heckel, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
+High Priority Projects list . . . . . . . . . . . 29
+Hillel (the Elder) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+Hollings, Senator Ernest . . . . . . . 107, 118
+Hollywood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 205
+Hopkins, Don . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+Horowitz, Bradley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
+HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 219, 232–233
+Hugo, Victor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139–141
+Hungry Programmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+Hurd, GNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 80
+Hurd, original name of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+HyperCard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
+
+I
+IBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150–153
+IcedTea (see also Java) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
+identi.ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+Impress, OpenOffice.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
+India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60, 83–84
+Intel (see also “trusted computing”)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 205
+“intellectual property,” bias and fallacy
+of term (see also ownership)
+. . 33–34, 38, 89–91, 95, 97, 124, 143
+International Institute of Information
+Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
+International Organization for
+Standardization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
+iPlayer, BBC (see also DRM) . . . . . . 240
+ISP (Internet Service Provider) . . . . 108,
+159
+ITS (Incompatible Timesharing System)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 9, 26
+
+J
+Java . . . . . . . . . 74, 215–217, 220–221, 242
+JavaFX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
+JavaScript. . . . . . . . . . . . 210, 212, 219–222
+JPEG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148–149, 194
+
+K
+Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
+
+Index
+Kantian ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+KaZaA (see also both DRM and
+treacherous computing) . . . . . . . 205,
+227–228
+KDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+Kelly, Kevin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
+kernel, GNU Hurd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 80
+kernel, Linux . . . . . . 19, 98, 141, 156–157,
+235–236
+Kindle (see also Swindle) . . . . . . 124, 210
+King, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
+Kodak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
+Kuhn, Bradley M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
+
+L
+Lakhani, Karim R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
+LaMacchia, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
+“LAMP system,” problematic term (see
+also GLAMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
+LATEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
+Lawrence Livermore Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+lax permissive licensed software . . . . . . 80
+Lee, Matt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
+Lemley, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
+Les Mis´erables, Victor Hugo . . . 139–141
+Lesser General Public License (LGPL),
+GNU (see also LGPL) . . . . . 189–191
+Lessig, Lawrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
+LessTif (see also Motif) . . 17, 20, 74, 216
+Levy, Steven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+LGPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189–191
+LGPL, altering distribution terms to
+GPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
+LGPL, and GNU libraries . . . . . 128, 130
+LGPL, as compromise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
+LGPL, GNU C library and . . . . . . . 16–17
+LGPL, introduction to . . . . . . . . . 167–168
+libraries (comp.), as traps . . 74, 215–217
+libraries (comp.), C . . 14, 16, 17, 18, 217
+libraries (comp.), GNU . . . . . 16, 128, 130
+libraries (comp.), GNU C Library (see
+also GNU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16
+libraries (comp.), LGPL and . . . . . . . 128,
+167–168, 241
+libraries, access fees and . . . . . . . 121–122
+libraries, DMCA, fair use, and (see also
+DMCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+libraries, e-books and . . . . . . . . . . 117, 124
+licenses (see also Affero, FDL, GPL,
+LGPL, X11, BSD, XFree86, and lax
+permissive licenses) . . . . . . . . 165–201
+
+261
+Linux kernel . . . . . . 19, 98, 141, 156–157,
+235–236
+Linux Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
+“Linux system,” avoid use of term . . . 98
+“Linux,” erroneous use of term (see also
+open source) . . . . 22, 73–75, 98, 159
+Lisp, Common. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
+Lisp, Lisp Machine operating system
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
+Lisp, Lisp-based window system . . . . . 25
+Lisp, programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
+Lotus Marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
+Love, Courtney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
+Lula da Silva, President . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) data
+compression algorithm (see also
+patents) . . . . . . . 17, 21, 145, 147–148
+
+M
+Mach microkernel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+MacOS (see also DRM) . . . . . . . 228, 240
+malware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228–229
+manuals (see also manuals, FDL, and
+documentation) . . 6, 61–63, 193–201
+manuals, FDL and . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 168
+manuals, GNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
+manuals, need for. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21–22, 66
+“market,” erroneous use of term . . . . . 98
+MCC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
+McGrath, Roland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+McMillan, Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
+McVoy, Larry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235–236
+Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
+Microsoft, and GPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
+Microsoft, and patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
+Microsoft, control over users . . . . . . . . 108
+Microsoft, freedom or power? . . . . . . . 247
+Microsoft, license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
+Microsoft, monopoly . . . . . . . . . . . 159–161
+Microsoft, Novell-Microsoft pact . . . . 186
+Microsoft, OOXML format (see also
+patents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141, 231
+Microsoft, Palladium (see also both
+Palladium and “trusted
+computing”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205–208
+Microsoft, war on GPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
+Microsoft, Word (see also Word)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231–233
+MIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 25–26, 59, 97
+MIT, AI (Artificial Intelligence) Lab
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11, 26, 28, 49
+
+262
+MIT, Chaosnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28
+MIT, X Window System and . . . . . . . . 12
+Motif (see also LessTif) . . 20, 22, 74, 216
+Motorola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 40
+MP3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 98
+“MP3 Player,” problematic use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
+MPEG-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141, 149
+Multics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+
+N
+Napster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
+National Science Foundation (NSF) . . 35
+netiquette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
+New Labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
+New York Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 145
+New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
+NeXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
+Nine Inch Nails. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
+noncopylefted free software (see also
+software) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 79–80
+nondisclosure agreements . . . 8, 9, 12, 26,
+28
+nonfree software (see also software) . . 81
+nonfree software, danger of . . . . . 235–236
+nonfree software, insidious and nefarious
+addition of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73–75
+NoScript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
+Novell (see also patents, GPL, and
+Microsoft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
+nroff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
+NYU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 118
+
+O
+O’Reilly Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
+Ogg Vorbis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
+Open Group (see also X Consortium, its
+precursor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130–131
+Open Source Initiative (OSI) . . . . . . . . 84
+open source software (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 83–84
+open source, and fear of freedom . . 87–88
+open source, DRM and . . . . . . . . . . . 86–87
+open source, essential difference between
+free software and . . . . . 23, 78, 83–84
+“open source,” common
+misunderstandings of . . . . . . . . 84–86
+“open source,” consumer values and
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
+“open source,” the GPL and . . . . . . . . . 85
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+
+“open source,” values of . . 22–23, 83–84,
+86, 87–88
+“open,” misleading use of term . . . 14, 99
+OpenMoko (see also cell phones) . . . 228
+OpenOffice.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99, 159
+Orwell, George . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 210
+ownership, and damage to social
+cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 47–48
+ownership, and material harm . . . 46–47,
+48–50
+ownership, and Soviet-style information
+control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37–38
+ownership, and users’ freedom . . . . 8, 57,
+209
+ownership, argument against . . . . . 44–45
+ownership, arguments for . . 38–40, 43–44
+ownership, developers’ interests v.
+public’s prosperity and freedom
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 248
+ownership, fallacy of charge of
+communism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
+ownership, obstructing software . . 45–46
+ownership, obstructing use of programs
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46–47
+ownership, servers and software . . . . . 210
+
+P
+Palladium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 205–208
+Parunakian, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
+Pascal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+Pastel, compiler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+Patent and Trademark Office, US . . . 166
+patents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 33, 135–161
+patents, Diamond v. Diehr . . . . . . . . . 166
+patents, a trivial patent . . . . . . . . 135–138
+patents, analogy between literary and
+software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139–141
+patents, and/or patent law, as
+distinguished from trademarks and
+copyrights and/or trademark law
+and copyright law . . . . . . . . . . . 89–91
+patents, difference between copyrights
+and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 157–158
+patents, economically self-defeating
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
+patents, GPL version 3 and . . . . . . . . 172,
+179–181, 185–187
+patents, GPL version 2 and . . . . . . . . . 166
+patents, GPL version 3 and . . . . . . . . . 169
+
+Index
+patents, historical significance of
+OOXML patent problem (see also
+Microsoft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159–161
+patents, IBM and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150–153
+patents, LZW data compression
+algorithm . . . . . . . . . 21, 145, 147–148
+patents, Microsoft monopoly . . . 159–161
+patents, Novell-Microsoft pact . . . . . . 186
+patents, on abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . 149
+patents, proposed European Union
+software patents directive . . 101, 139
+patents, term “intellectual property”
+obscures issues raised by . . . . . 89–91
+patents, “uniform fee only” . . . . . . . . . 100
+patents, US Patent and Trademark
+Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
+pay-per-view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
+“PC,” erroneous use of term . . . . . . . . . 99
+PDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194, 232–233
+peer-to-peer . . . . . . . . . . 124, 176, 179, 213
+Perkins Smith & Cohen LLP . . . . . . . 166
+Perl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
+phishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
+“photoshop,” erroneous use of term . . 99
+“piracy,” erroneous use of term . . . . 6, 8,
+38, 40, 99, 114–115, 124
+PNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148, 194
+PostScript language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
+PowerPoint (see also Word) . . . . . . . . 233
+“PowerPoint,” erroneous use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
+prep.ai.mit.edu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+Privacy Guard (GPG), GNU . . . . 17, 207
+private software (see also software) . . 82
+processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159, 212
+productivity, software . . . . . . . . . . . . 53–54
+programmers, and cognitive dissonance
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47–48
+programmers, and creativity and
+entitlement . . . . . . . . . . . 32–34, 38–39
+programmers, and productivity . . . 53–54
+programmers, incentive for . . . 29, 34–35,
+51–52, 53
+programmers, income for . . . . 12, 14, 32,
+32–33, 35–36, 40, 52–53
+programmers, psychosocial harm to
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 49–50
+proprietary software (see also software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 205–208
+proprietary software, as distinguished
+from SaaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209–211
+
+263
+
+proprietary software, freedom or power?
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247–248
+proprietary software, paradox of
+permissive license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
+proprietary software, spying on users
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210, 227, 239–240
+proprietary software, to be distinguished
+from commercial software . . . . . . . 82
+“protection,” erroneous use of term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100, 124
+public domain software (see also
+software) . . . . . . . . 12, 29, 78–79, 127
+
+Q
+Qt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 22, 74, 216
+
+R
+Radiohead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
+RAID array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
+“RAND (Reasonable and
+Non-Discriminatory),” avoid use of
+term (see also patents) . . . . . . . . 100
+Raymond, Eric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
+Readline (see also both libraries (comp.)
+and GNU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
+Readline, GNU (see also libraries
+(comp.), GNU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
+Reagan, President Ronald . . . . . . . . . . . 56
+RealAudio stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
+RealPlayer (see also DRM) . . . . . . . . 210,
+227–228
+Recording Industry Association of
+America (RIAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+Red Hat Linux (see also “Linux,”
+erroneous use of term) . . . . . . . . . . 22
+Red Hat Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+Resig, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
+“Right to Read: A Dystopian
+Short Story” (see also DMCA,
+DRM, fair use, and libraries)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105–107
+RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company . . . . . 57
+RMS, Richard Stallman, often referred
+to as (see also Stallman) . . . . . . . . 25
+Rumith, Jaffar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
+Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 118
+
+264
+
+S
+SaaS, as distinguished from other
+network services . . . . . . . . . . . 211–212
+SaaS, as distinguished from proprietary
+software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209–211
+SaaS, “cloud computing” obfuscating
+problems posed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+SaaS, dealing with problem of . . 212–213
+SaaS, development hosting sites and
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+SaaS, e-commerce and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+SaaS, Facebook and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+SaaS, Flickr and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+SaaS, Google Docs as example of . . . 211
+SaaS, joint projects and . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+SaaS, multiplayer games . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+SaaS, publication-and-communication
+sites and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+SaaS, Savannah and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+SaaS, sites offering multiple services,
+including . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
+SaaS, SourceForge and . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+“Sadi moma bela loza” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
+Savannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+schools, free software in . . . . . . . 30, 57–58
+Schroeder, Pat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+secure boot (see also tivoization) . . . . . 4
+Security Systems Standards and
+Certification Act (SSSCA) (see also
+Consumer Broadband and Digital
+Television Promotion Act
+(CBDTPA)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107, 118
+selling, and distribution fees . . . . . . 66–67
+selling, free software . . . . . . 10, 14, 65–67
+selling, “sell software,” ambiguous term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
+selling, software-related services . . . . . . 52
+SGAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
+SGML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
+Shakespeare, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
+shareware (see also software) . . . . . 81–82
+Silverlight (see also Microsoft) . . . . . . 220
+Sklyarov, Dmitry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
+Smith, Brett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
+Software as a Service (SaaS) (see also
+SaaS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209–213
+“software industry,” problematic term
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
+Software Publishers Association (SPA)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 108
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+software, commercial (see also
+commercial software) . . . . . . . . 82, 94
+software, copylefted (see also copylefted
+software) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
+software, free (see also free software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77–78
+software, freeware (see also freeware)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
+software, GNU operating system (see
+also GNU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
+software, GNU programs (see also GNU
+programs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
+software, GNU(see also GNU software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–81
+software, GPL-covered (see also
+GPL-covered software) . . . . . . . . . . 80
+software, lax permissive licensed . . . . . 80
+software, noncopylefted free (see also
+noncopylefted free software)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79–80
+software, nonfree (see also nonfree
+software) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
+software, open source (see also open
+source software) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
+software, overstretched analogy with
+material objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
+software, private . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
+software, proprietary (see also
+proprietary software) . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
+software, public domain (see also public
+domain software) . . . . . . . . . . . . 78–79
+software, shareware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81–82
+software, software productivity . . . 53–54
+software, software tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
+Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
+Act (also known as^^Mthe Mickey
+Mouse Copyright Act) . . . . . . . . . 116
+Sony Reader (call it the Shreader) . . 124
+SourceForge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 211
+Soviet Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 55, 108
+Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 125
+spyware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209–210
+Stallman, Richard . . . . . . . . . v, 26, 40, 69,
+165–169
+Stephenson, Neal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
+Stross, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+Sun Microsystems . . . . . 74, 147, 215–216
+Supreme Court, US . . . 56, 111, 116, 166
+Swindle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124, 227
+Swing library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
+Symbolics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+Index
+
+T
+terminology, importance of using correct
+. . . 38, 73–75, 83–88, 89–91, 93–102
+TEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 27, 80, 99, 185
+Texas Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
+“theft,” erroneous use of term . . . 38, 101
+Think magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
+TiVo (see also tivoization) . . . . . . . . . . 227
+tivoization . . . . 4, 169, 185–186, 219, 227
+Torvalds, Linus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 98
+trademarks and/or trademark law . . . 33,
+97, 178
+trademarks and/or trademark law, as
+distinguished from copyrights and
+patents and/or copyright law and
+trademark law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89–91
+trademarks, US Patent and Trademark
+Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
+traps, donated proprietary software . . 57
+traps, JavaScript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219–222
+traps, “Linux” distribution companies
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
+traps, nonfree dependencies . . . . 215–217
+traps, nonfree libraries . . 20, 74, 215–217
+traps, nonfree programming tools . . . . 74
+traps, “open source” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
+traps, treacherous computing (see also
+treacherous computing) . . . 205–208
+traps, X Window System. . . . . . . 223–225
+treacherous computing . . . . . . . . 101, 108,
+205–208
+Tridgell, Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
+“trusted computing,” avoid use of term
+(see also treacherous computing)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 108, 205–208
+Twitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
+
+U
+UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
+UN (United Nations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
+Univates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
+universities . . . . . . . . 52, 94, 108, 122, 150
+universities, releasing free software at
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 59–60
+University of Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
+University of Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
+Unix compatibility, announcement of
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 27
+Unix compatibility, ease of contribution
+because of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 29
+
+265
+Unix compatibility, games and . . . . . . . 16
+Unix compatibility, GNU Project
+development and . . . . . . . . . . . . 17–18
+Unix compatibility, Linux kernel and
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
+Unix compatibility, reason for . . . . . 9, 28
+users, arguments used to justify control
+over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38–40
+users, benefit to . . . . . . 30, 36, 57–58, 228
+users, material harm to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
+users, obligations to developers . . . . . . 53
+users, premise of author supremacy (see
+also ownership) . . 38–39, 55–56, 120
+users, psychosocial harm to . . . . . . . . . . 46
+users, technical support for GNU . . . . 31
+UUCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28
+
+V
+Valenti, Jack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
+Valjean, literary character Jean (see also
+Les Mis´erables) . . . . . . . . . . . 140–141
+VAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+“vendor,” erroneous use of term . . . . 102
+vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+Vista, Windows (see also both Windows
+and DRM) . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 227, 240
+VMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
+
+W
+War on Sharing (see also DRM and
+copyright) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
+Wikipedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 211
+Windows . . . . . . . . . . 74, 99, 159, 216, 227
+Windows Media Player (see also both
+DRM and treacherous computing)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205, 210, 227–228
+Windows, SaaS and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
+Windows, social inertia, short-term
+convenience, and (see also citizen
+values) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
+Windows, Vista . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 227, 240
+Winer, Dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
+Winston, Patrick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+Wired magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
+Wolf, Robert G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
+Word, and treacherous computing (see
+also treacherous computing)
+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159–160, 206–207
+Word, attachments. . . . . . . . . . . . . 231–233
+
+266
+Word, converting Word documents into
+free formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232–233
+World “Intellectual Property”
+Organization (WIPO) (see also
+“intellectual property”) . . . . . 89, 91,
+98, 117
+
+X
+X Consortium (see also Open Group, its
+successor) . . . . . 79–80, 130, 223–224
+X Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
+X Window System . . . . 10, 12–13, 79–80,
+223–225
+X.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
+X11 licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79–80, 80, 224
+X11R6.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131, 223–224
+XCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
+
+Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.
+Xerox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
+XFree86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 224
+XFree86 license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
+XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
+xrdb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
+xset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
+Xywrite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
+
+Y
+yacc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 27
+Yahoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
+Yoda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
+
+Z
+Zittrain, Jonathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227–229
+zombie machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
+
+
\ No newline at end of file