[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy shouldbefree.html
|
From: |
Karl Berry |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy shouldbefree.html |
|
Date: |
Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:55:26 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Karl Berry <karl> 06/11/26 18:55:26
Modified files:
philosophy : shouldbefree.html
Log message:
l/rdquo
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
Patches:
Index: shouldbefree.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- shouldbefree.html 30 Oct 2006 17:23:48 -0000 1.19
+++ shouldbefree.html 26 Nov 2006 18:52:39 -0000 1.20
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party,
-called the ``owner''?</p>
+called the “owner”?</p>
<p>
Software developers typically consider these questions on the
assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that
programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute,
study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write
-<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free'' software</a>.<a
href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free” software</a>.<a
href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
<h3>How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
<p>
@@ -72,8 +72,8 @@
offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
emotional argument and the economic argument.</p>
<p>
- The emotional argument goes like this: ``I put my sweat, my heart, my
-soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>, it's <em>mine</em>!''</p>
+ The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my heart, my
+soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>, it's
<em>mine</em>!”</p>
<p>
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of
attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it
@@ -85,11 +85,11 @@
was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the
purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.</p>
<p>
- The economic argument goes like this: ``I want to get rich (usually
+ 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
+programs at all!” This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice
from the wise.</p>
<p>
I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to
@@ -114,8 +114,8 @@
<h3>The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
<p>
- The question at hand is, ``Should development of software be linked
-with having owners to restrict the use of it?''</p>
+ The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked
+with having owners to restrict the use of it?”</p>
<p>
In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
each of those two activities <em>independently</em>: the effect of developing
@@ -134,8 +134,8 @@
two possible worlds.</p>
<p>
This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
-made that ``the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a
-program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.'' This
+made that “the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a
+program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.” This
counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal in
magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and shows
that the benefit is much greater.</p>
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@
better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion.</p>
<p>
To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
-that having ``toll booths'' for useful software programs costs society
+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
@@ -285,8 +285,8 @@
find it acceptable.</p>
<p>
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
-neighbor: ``I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I
-can have a copy for myself.'' People who make such choices feel
+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
@@ -304,8 +304,8 @@
Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of
cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
-work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, ``Will I be
-permitted to use it?'', his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
+work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, “Will I be
+permitted to use it?”, his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
it.</p>
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@
meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
change the numbers to make the program do something different.</p>
<p>
- Programmers normally work with the ``source code'' for a program, which
+ 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 `-'
@@ -408,20 +408,20 @@
are unhappy and do not do good work.</p>
<p>
Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
-fashion as software. You might say, ``How do I change this recipe to
-take out the salt?'' and the great chef would respond, ``How dare you
+fashion as software. You might say, “How do I change this recipe to
+take out the salt?” and the great chef would respond, “How dare you
insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my palate, by trying to
tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to change my recipe and
-make it work right!''</p>
+make it work right!”</p>
<p>
- ``But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I do?
-Will you take out the salt for me?''</p>
+ “But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I do?
+Will you take out the salt for me?”</p>
<p>
- ``I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.'' Since the
-owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. ``However,
+ “I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.” Since the
+owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. “However,
right now I don't have time. I am busy with a commission to design a
new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get
-around to you in about two years.''</p>
+around to you in about two years.”</p>
<h4>Obstructing Software Development</h4>
<p>
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@
would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one new
feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add another
feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty years.
-Meanwhile, parts of the program would be ``cannibalized'' to form the
+Meanwhile, parts of the program would be “cannibalized” to form the
beginnings of other programs.</p>
<p>
The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
@@ -487,8 +487,8 @@
software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging
the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.</p>
<p>
- Vaclav Havel has advised us to ``Work for something because it is
-good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.'' A business
+ Vaclav Havel has advised us to “Work for something because it is
+good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.” A business
making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
terms, but it is not what is good for society.</p>
@@ -525,8 +525,8 @@
special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.</p>
<p>
This change happened in the field of computer programming in the
-past decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on ``computer
-addiction'': users were ``onlining'' and had hundred-dollar-a-week
+past decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on “computer
+addiction”: users were “onlining” and had
hundred-dollar-a-week
habits. It was generally understood that people frequently loved
programming enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is
generally understood that no one would program except for a high rate
@@ -539,7 +539,7 @@
people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.</p>
<p>
- The question, ``How can we pay programmers?'' becomes an easier
+ The question, “How can we pay programmers?” becomes an easier
question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a
fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p>
@@ -564,9 +564,9 @@
<p>
It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call
-that ``finished'', and then start companies where they really finish the
+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
+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
@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@
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
+that “free software” refers to freedom, not to price.) Some users
who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a contribution
they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives sizable donations
from computer manufacturers.</p>
@@ -662,12 +662,12 @@
productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief
that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?</p>
<p>
- ``Software productivity'' can mean two different things: the overall
+ “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
+who study the field of “software productivity” focus only on the
second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult
technological advances.</p>
@@ -692,8 +692,8 @@
desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.</p>
<p>
Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
-impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when ``Let the best
-person win'' gives way to ``Let me win, best or not.'' Proprietary
+impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when “Let the best
+person win” gives way to “Let me win, best or not.”
Proprietary
software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but
because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.</p>
<p>
@@ -713,7 +713,7 @@
prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
equivalent of factional civil war.</p>
-<h3>``Why Don't You Move to Russia?''</h3>
+<h3>“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3>
<p>
In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
@@ -773,11 +773,11 @@
part of our legal tradition. It never has been.</p>
<p>
Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
-``promote the progress of science and the useful arts.'' The Supreme
-Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal' that ``The
+“promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” The Supreme
+Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal' that “The
sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the
-public from the labors of authors.''</p>
+public from the labors of authors.”</p>
<p>
We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions
@@ -812,7 +812,7 @@
<h3>Footnotes</h3>
<ol>
-<li> <a id="f1"> The word ``free'' in ``free software'' refers to
+<li> <a id="f1"> The word “free” in “free software”
refers to
freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may
be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.</a></li>
@@ -918,7 +918,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2006/10/30 17:23:48 $ $Author: rms $
+$Date: 2006/11/26 18:52:39 $ $Author: karl $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy shouldbefree.html,
Karl Berry <=