[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy .symlinks greve-clown.de.html sp...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy .symlinks greve-clown.de.html sp... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:52:47 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/06/27 10:52:47
Modified files:
philosophy : .symlinks greve-clown.de.html
speeches-and-interview.html
Added files:
philosophy : greve-clown.html
Removed files:
philosophy : greve-clown.en.html
Log message:
Rename greve-clown.en.html as greve-clown.html.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/.symlinks?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=1.33
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/greve-clown.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/greve-clown.en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=0
Patches:
Index: .symlinks
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/.symlinks,v
retrieving revision 1.32
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -b -r1.32 -r1.33
--- .symlinks 19 May 2008 15:22:54 -0000 1.32
+++ .symlinks 27 Jun 2008 10:52:08 -0000 1.33
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
../licenses/why-not-lgpl.pl.html why-not-lgpl.pl.html
../licenses/why-not-lgpl.ru.html why-not-lgpl.ru.html
ebooks.html rms-ebooks-freedom-or-copyright.html
+greve-clown.html greve-clown.en.html
no-word-attachments.html no-word-attachments
not-ipr.de.html not-ipr.de.xhtml
not-ipr.fr.html not-ipr.fr.xhtml
Index: greve-clown.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- greve-clown.de.html 7 Feb 2007 02:35:32 -0000 1.4
+++ greve-clown.de.html 27 Jun 2008 10:52:08 -0000 1.5
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
Copyright (C) 1998 Georg C. F. Greve.<br>
Permission statement <A HREF="#Permission"
NAME="TOCPermission">below</A><br><p>
This is the original German version of the speech, an <br>
-<hl><A HREF="/philosophy/greve-clown.en.html">English Translation</A><hl><br>
+<hl><A HREF="/philosophy/greve-clown.html">English Translation</A><hl><br>
is also available. Reading the original is recommended.<br>
</small>
<h1><A HREF="/people/greve.html">Georg C. F. Greve <address@hidden></A><BR>
Index: speeches-and-interview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- speeches-and-interview.html 20 Jun 2008 11:03:08 -0000 1.3
+++ speeches-and-interview.html 27 Jun 2008 10:52:08 -0000 1.4
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@
<a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a>
gave in 1998 at the University of
Paris.</li>
- <li><a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.en.html">English translation of a
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.html">English translation of a
speech</a>
that Georg Greve
gave in 1998 at the GNU/Linux Cluster “CLOWN” in Germany
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/06/20 11:03:08 $
+$Date: 2008/06/27 10:52:08 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: greve-clown.html
===================================================================
RCS file: greve-clown.html
diff -N greve-clown.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ greve-clown.html 27 Jun 2008 10:52:08 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,439 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<title>Speech at the CLOWN - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Speech by Georg C. F. Greve in Paderborn (Germany), 5. 12. 98 at the
CLOWN.</h2>
+
+<!-- Changed by: Georg C. F. Greve, 16-Dec-1998 -->
+
+<p style="text-align:center">
+<small>
+ Copyright © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve.<br />
+ Permission statement <a href="#Permission">below</a><br />
+<br />
+Dies ist eine Übersetzung der Rede, das<br />
+<a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">Deutsche Original</a><br />
+ist ebenfalls verfügbar und wird empfohlen.<br />
+</small>
+</p>
+<h3><a href="http://gnuhh.org";>Georg C. F. Greve</a>
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a><br />
+ History and Philosophy of the<br />
+ GNU Project<br />
+</h3>
+<p style="text-align:center">
+<em>This speech was given at the CLOWN (Cluster of Working Nodes), <br />
+a 512-node Cluster project of Debian GNU/Linux machines in the<br />
+University of Paderborn, Germany.<br />
+<br />
+ 5. December 1998
+</em>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+<strong>
+[Note: In translating this speech I have tried to stay as close as
+possible to the original speech that I have given in German. Breaking
+up the German structures and turning them into reasonable English has
+been quite some work, and I would like to thank my roommate Doug
+Chapin, a good friend and native American who helped me with some
+phrases and words. The translation will never hold the same emotions
+and implications but I think we got very close…]
+</strong>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+During the preparation of this speech I have read several documents
+and spoken to a lot of people. In doing so I realized that even people
+whose jobs have been created more or less directly by the GNU project
+did not know it's true meaning. In the overall rush we are
+experiencing at the moment, it seems that a basic awareness of the
+roots has been lost. Tonight I hope I'll be able to uncover some of
+those roots again.</p>
+
+<p>
+The origin lies somewhere in the transition from the 70's to the 80's,
+when the software industry became what we accept so willingly
+today. In the initial competition, some firms took to hording code as
+a survival strategy. While attempting to support this behaviour's
+legality, they created phrases like “Software Piracy”
+because they suggest that something is lost when software is
+copied. People were forced to yield to licenses that bound them to
+make sure that no one else had access to these programs.</p>
+
+<p>
+When a friend asked you whether he could copy a program from you, you
+immediately faced a dilemma. There are no disadvantages for you in
+copying the program, and it doesn't deteriorate during the copying
+process… it would be more restrictive if he asked you to pass
+the salt, since you can't both use it at the same time. The politics
+of the companies forced you to <b>choose</b> between legality and
+friendship.</p>
+
+<p>
+A lot of people were upset about this and most of them copied the
+program anyway—very often using lame excuses that were mostly
+aimed at calming their own troubled consciousness (induced by the
+firms' choice of words). The absolute hit was probably “If I
+would use it more often I would pay it” … a phrase that
+probably everyone caught himself using if he ever had to rely on
+proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+One man found this situation unbearable. Used to the early days, the
+(as he says himself) “paradise,”, where freedom and
+responsible use of the possibilities determined the situation, Richard
+Stallman envisioned the concept of a completely free system. Very
+quickly it became clear that this system would be Unix-compatible and
+it was baptized—recursive acronyms were very popular back
+then—GNU, which means “GNU's Not Unix.”<br />
+Stallman gathered some people who shared his fascination with a free
+system and founded the GNU Free Software Foundation, of which he is
+still the president today.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since first of all a Unix system requires a large set of components,
+it became clear that these were the the first step towards a
+completely free system. The GNU FSF worked on implementing them, and
+by the beginning of the 90's the GNU system was complete (with the
+exception of the kernel).<br />
+The GNU kernel—project name “HURD”—has an
+extremely ambitious layout that proved to be very slow and clumsy in
+development. Fortunately at this point Linus Torvalds's first Linux
+kernel was in the test phase, and when he saw the work already done by
+the GNU FSF he put his kernel under the GNU GPL and made it the kernel
+of the GNU system.</p>
+
+<p>
+There is no need to tell the rest of the story since most of us have
+experienced it themselves.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little earlier I said that Richard Stallman envisioned the concept
+of Free Software—what I didn't tell you about was the Philosophy
+that stands behind it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The “Free” in Free Software does not refer to the price
+but to “Freedom”. This is no unproblematic topic and
+recently some of the visionaries of the movement (like Eric Raymond)
+have begun to talk about “Open Source” because
+“Freedom” has an uneasy sound to it for most
+people. Freedom rings of “making world a better place” and
+insecurity. It rings of change, and change frightens many people. To
+numb this fear, other licenses for free software have been invented in
+order to make the concept digestible for more people and to avoid
+scaring the industry.</p>
+
+<p>
+That is the reason why the GNU Project dislikes the term “Open
+Source.” We think it makes more sense to take away people's
+fears of the idea instead of blurring the concept. Only if users and
+firms are aware of the importance of freedom can we avoid falling back
+into old patterns.</p>
+
+<p>
+The philosophy of the GNU Project says that <b>everyone</b> shall have
+the granted right to use a program, to copy it, and to change it to
+make it fit his or her needs. The <b>only</b> restriction the GNU
+General Public License makes, is that <b>NO ONE</b> has the right to
+take away this freedom from anyone else.</p>
+
+<p>
+When an author puts his code under the GNU GPL, the freedom is an
+inseperable part of his program. Of course, this is a thorn in the
+side of a lot of businesses eyes because it stops them from taking the
+code, modifying it, and then selling it as a proprietary program. As
+long as there are people who try to live the dream of instant wealth
+it is this freedom that stops firms like Microsoft from corrupting the
+future development of our system.</p>
+
+<p>
+The most used argument against the GNU Philosophy is probably that
+software is the “intellectual property” of the programmer
+and it is only right if he can decide the price for which the program
+is distributed. This argument is easy to understand for everyone since
+it is exactly what we have been told to believe during the last 20
+years.</p>
+
+<p>
+Reality is a little different, though. Private programmers who can
+live off selling self-written software are the exception. Usually they
+give their rights to the firm they work at and this firm earns the
+money by restricting access to that program. Effectively, the
+firm has the rights for that program and decides it's price
+—not the programmer.</p>
+
+<p>
+A lawyer who invents an especially brilliant strategy has no right to
+claim it as his “intellectual property;” the method is
+freely available to anyone. Why do we so willingly accept the concept
+that every line of code—no matter how poorly written or
+uninspired it may be—is so unique and incredibly personal ? The
+zeal for control has taken over in a way that even human genes are
+subject to patents…although usually not by the people who
+“use” them. Should really <b>everything</b> be allowed to
+be patented and licensed?</p>
+
+<p>
+This is the question that is one of the core thoughts of the GNU
+Project. Let us just imagine there would be no such concept as
+patented software or patenting software would be unusual because
+everyone published his programs under the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>
+Solutions for standard problems that had to be solved over and over
+again can be accessed easily. No one has to waste his time ever again
+to work on the same problem dozens of times—programmers could
+search for new ways and approach new problems. If a group of users
+needs a certain feature in a program they just hire a programmer and
+let him implement it. Freed of the limitations of licenses and money
+only two criteria would determine the development of programs: demand
+and quality.</p>
+
+<p>
+Speaking of quality—nowadays more and more firms realize that
+allowing the users to access the sourcecode gives them a huge
+advantage. To say it in a simple way: more eyes can see
+more. Solutions that are unimaginable for one person are painfully
+obvious for someone else. Due to this advantage Free Software is very
+often so much better than its proprietary counterpart. The train of
+thought that now appears to be establishing itself within some firms
+is to give users access to the source code but not grant any other
+rights. Improvements are obediently being sent back to the firm that
+advances it's product with them. Basically as a gigantic gratis
+development division. If we do not pay attention to these
+things <b>now</b> it might happen that in 5 years we will have to pay
+for a version that has been produced by applying our own patch.</p>
+
+<p>
+The concept of software as “intellectual property” carries
+the seed of doom inside itself (please forgive me for the pathos
+here). As long as we accept this concept, we accept the danger that
+another firm will attempt to take control. Microsoft is
+<em>not</em> evil incarnate as some people seem to percieve. Microsoft
+is <em>the natural consequence</em> of the widely accepted system.</p>
+
+<p>
+The fear of sawing the branch you're sitting on is also commonly
+spread, but completely irrational. Better programs lead to more users
+that have other needs and new ideas, creating more demand. The
+structure will change to fit the new situation but work will increase
+rather than decrease—and it will become less routine and hence
+more interesting.</p>
+
+<p>
+The last common fear that remains is the fear over lack of
+recognition. Well, the respect held for the frontmen of the different
+philosophies speaks for itself. I on my part would prefer to be as
+respected as Linus Thorvalds or Richard Stallman than having the
+reputation of Bill Gates.</p>
+
+<p>
+Admittedly, this does sound like bettering the world and idealism, but
+a lot of the really great ideas were driven by the wish to make the
+world a little better.</p>
+
+<p>
+And to settle one point very clearly: no, the GNU Project is not
+agains capitalism or firms in general and it is not against software
+firms in particular. We do not want to diminish the potential for
+profit—quite to the contrary. Every firm is being told to make
+as much money as they can off the sale of software, the documentation
+and the service—as long as they stick to the basic principles of
+Free Software.<br />
+The more these firms earn the more they can invest into the
+development of new software. We do not want to destroy the market, we
+just want to fit it to the times.</p>
+
+<p>
+One short note about the basic principles: of course Free Software
+also requires free documentation. It doesn't make any sense to free
+the successor of the book—software—while accepting control
+of the direct digital equivalent. Free documentation is as important
+as Free Software itself.</p>
+
+<p>
+Maybe someone discarded my statement about seeking to “fit the
+market to the times” as a rethorical stament—but it is an
+important point in the GNU Philosophy:<br />
+the time when software was only relevant for a few freaks and some
+firms is long gone. Nowadays software is the pathway to information. A
+system that blocks the pathways to information and in doing so the
+access to the information itself <b>must</b> be reconsidered.</p>
+
+<p>
+When Eric Raymond published the so called “Halloween
+Document” it triggered emotions from euphoria to paranoia. For
+those of you who did not read it: it is a Microsoft internal study in
+which the strengths and weaknesses of Free Software in general and
+Linux especially are analyzed. The author basically concluded that
+Microsoft has two possibilities to counter the threat.</p>
+
+<p>
+The first is the creation of new or modification of old protocols
+documenting them only poorly or not at all, so that only Windows-based
+machines will have a working implementation.</p>
+
+<p>
+One example of this tactic is the protocol used by HP
+“Cxi” printers which have entered the market as extremely
+cheap “Windows-Printers.” The specifications have only
+been given to Microsoft, so these printers are not usable by any other
+system.</p>
+
+<p>
+I have been told by a “professionally trained” computer
+salesperson that the “for Windows” sticker means that the
+printer needs a very special kind of RAM that only Windows machines
+have—that's why it cannot be used under Linux. Something like
+this confuses the typical user, which brings me directly to the second
+described tactic.</p>
+
+<p>
+These tactics are usually gathered under the synonym “FUD”
+(Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and were used by IBM long before Microsoft
+unconvered them. The idea is clear: If you make someone uncertain
+enough, he or she will not dare to make <b>any</b> decission,
+effectively remaining in his or her current position. That is the
+thought.</p>
+
+<p>
+For all times, education has been the arch-enemy of superstition.
+We must not allow education to be hindered by allowing ourselves to
+become split.</p>
+
+<p>
+The most recogniziable split in the recent history has been the
+already noted distinction between “Open Source” and
+“Free Software.” Telling both concepts apart is not an
+easy task even for most insiders and it is only understandable if
+viewed in a historical context. Since this is a central point I'd like
+to say a few words about it.</p>
+
+<p>
+With the completion of the GNU System with the Linux Kernel there was
+suddenly a complete, powerful, free system available. This inevitably
+had to raise the public's attention sooner or later.</p>
+
+<p>
+When this attention came a lot of firms were disconcerted by the word
+“Free.” The first association was “no money”
+which immediatly meant “no profit” for them. When people
+then tried to tell them the “Free” truly stands for
+“Freedom” they were completely shaken.</p>
+
+<p>
+Infected by this insecurity and doubt the idea arose to avoid words
+like “Free” and “Freedom” at all costs. The
+term “Open Source” was born.</p>
+
+<p>
+Admittedly it is easier to sell the idea is you use the term
+“Open Source” instead of “Free
+Software.”<br />
+But it has the consequence that the “newbies” have no
+knowledge or understanding of the original idea. It splits the
+movement and leads to incredibly unproductive trench wars that waste a
+huge amount of creative energy.</p>
+
+<p>
+A larger interested audience does not mean we should talk less about
+the underlying philosophy. Quite to the contrary: the more people and
+firms do not understand that this freedom is also in their interest,
+the more we need to talk about it. The Freedom of software offers a
+huge potential for all of us—firms and users.</p>
+
+<p>
+The plan is not to remove capitalism or destroy firms. We want to
+change the understanding of software for the benefit of all
+participants to fit the needs of the 21 century. This is the core of
+the GNU Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+Each of us can do his share - be it in form of a program,
+documentation, or just by spreading the word that there is another way
+of handling things.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is crucial to explain to the firms that Free Software is <b>no
+threat</b>, but an opportunity. Of course this doesn't happen
+overnight but when all participants realize the possibilities and
+perspectives, all of us will win. So if you are working in the
+software business, make yourself at home with the topic, talk about it
+with friends and colleagues. And please refrain from trying to
+“missionize” them—I know most of us have this
+tendency - the arguments speak for themselves. Give them the time and
+the peace to think it over and to befriend themselves with the
+concept. Show them that the concept of Freedom is nothing to be
+feared.</p>
+
+<p>
+I hope I was able to convey the philosophy or at least stimulate
+consideration of some new ideas. If you have questions or would like
+to discuss some things, I'll be here all night and all questions are
+welcome. I wish everyone a very interesting night. Thank you.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.</p>
+<p>
+Please send comments on this speech to Georg Greve
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a></p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve
+<br />
+<a id="Permission">Permission</a> is granted to make and distribute
+verbatim copies of this transcript as long as the copyright and this
+permission notice appear.</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/06/27 10:52:08 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical by language code. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is German. -->
+<!-- Write the language name in its own language (Deutsch) in the text. -->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the language code right; see: -->
+<!-- http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php -->
+<!-- If the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code is not available, -->
+<!-- use the 3-letter ISO 639-2. -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities. -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philisophy/greve-clown.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: greve-clown.en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: greve-clown.en.html
diff -N greve-clown.en.html
--- greve-clown.en.html 21 Apr 2007 22:46:36 -0000 1.4
+++ /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,437 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>Speech at the CLOWN - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Speech by Georg C. F. Greve in Paderborn (Germany), 5. 12. 98 at the
CLOWN.</h2>
-
-<!-- Changed by: Georg C. F. Greve, 16-Dec-1998 -->
-
-<p style="text-align:center">
-<small>
- Copyright © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve.<br />
- Permission statement <a href="#Permission">below</a><br />
-<br />
-Dies ist eine Übersetzung der Rede, das<br />
-<a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">Deutsche Original</a><br />
-ist ebenfalls verfügbar und wird empfohlen.<br />
-</small>
-</p>
-<h3><a href="http://gnuhh.org";>Georg C. F. Greve</a>
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a><br />
- History and Philosophy of the<br />
- GNU Project<br />
-</h3>
-<p style="text-align:center">
-<em>This speech was given at the CLOWN (Cluster of Working Nodes), <br />
-a 512-node Cluster project of Debian GNU/Linux machines in the<br />
-University of Paderborn, Germany.<br />
-<br />
- 5. December 1998
-</em>
-</p>
-
-<p>
-<strong>
-[Note: In translating this speech I have tried to stay as close as
-possible to the original speech that I have given in German. Breaking
-up the German structures and turning them into reasonable English has
-been quite some work, and I would like to thank my roommate Doug
-Chapin, a good friend and native American who helped me with some
-phrases and words. The translation will never hold the same emotions
-and implications but I think we got very close…]
-</strong>
-</p>
-
-<p>
-During the preparation of this speech I have read several documents
-and spoken to a lot of people. In doing so I realized that even people
-whose jobs have been created more or less directly by the GNU project
-did not know it's true meaning. In the overall rush we are
-experiencing at the moment, it seems that a basic awareness of the
-roots has been lost. Tonight I hope I'll be able to uncover some of
-those roots again.</p>
-
-<p>
-The origin lies somewhere in the transition from the 70's to the 80's,
-when the software industry became what we accept so willingly
-today. In the initial competition, some firms took to hording code as
-a survival strategy. While attempting to support this behaviour's
-legality, they created phrases like “Software Piracy”
-because they suggest that something is lost when software is
-copied. People were forced to yield to licenses that bound them to
-make sure that no one else had access to these programs.</p>
-
-<p>
-When a friend asked you whether he could copy a program from you, you
-immediately faced a dilemma. There are no disadvantages for you in
-copying the program, and it doesn't deteriorate during the copying
-process… it would be more restrictive if he asked you to pass
-the salt, since you can't both use it at the same time. The politics
-of the companies forced you to <b>choose</b> between legality and
-friendship.</p>
-
-<p>
-A lot of people were upset about this and most of them copied the
-program anyway—very often using lame excuses that were mostly
-aimed at calming their own troubled consciousness (induced by the
-firms' choice of words). The absolute hit was probably “If I
-would use it more often I would pay it” … a phrase that
-probably everyone caught himself using if he ever had to rely on
-proprietary software.</p>
-
-<p>
-One man found this situation unbearable. Used to the early days, the
-(as he says himself) “paradise,”, where freedom and
-responsible use of the possibilities determined the situation, Richard
-Stallman envisioned the concept of a completely free system. Very
-quickly it became clear that this system would be Unix-compatible and
-it was baptized—recursive acronyms were very popular back
-then—GNU, which means “GNU's Not Unix.”<br />
-Stallman gathered some people who shared his fascination with a free
-system and founded the GNU Free Software Foundation, of which he is
-still the president today.</p>
-
-<p>
-Since first of all a Unix system requires a large set of components,
-it became clear that these were the the first step towards a
-completely free system. The GNU FSF worked on implementing them, and
-by the beginning of the 90's the GNU system was complete (with the
-exception of the kernel).<br />
-The GNU kernel—project name “HURD”—has an
-extremely ambitious layout that proved to be very slow and clumsy in
-development. Fortunately at this point Linus Torvalds's first Linux
-kernel was in the test phase, and when he saw the work already done by
-the GNU FSF he put his kernel under the GNU GPL and made it the kernel
-of the GNU system.</p>
-
-<p>
-There is no need to tell the rest of the story since most of us have
-experienced it themselves.</p>
-
-<p>
-A little earlier I said that Richard Stallman envisioned the concept
-of Free Software—what I didn't tell you about was the Philosophy
-that stands behind it.</p>
-
-<p>
-The “Free” in Free Software does not refer to the price
-but to “Freedom”. This is no unproblematic topic and
-recently some of the visionaries of the movement (like Eric Raymond)
-have begun to talk about “Open Source” because
-“Freedom” has an uneasy sound to it for most
-people. Freedom rings of “making world a better place” and
-insecurity. It rings of change, and change frightens many people. To
-numb this fear, other licenses for free software have been invented in
-order to make the concept digestible for more people and to avoid
-scaring the industry.</p>
-
-<p>
-That is the reason why the GNU Project dislikes the term “Open
-Source.” We think it makes more sense to take away people's
-fears of the idea instead of blurring the concept. Only if users and
-firms are aware of the importance of freedom can we avoid falling back
-into old patterns.</p>
-
-<p>
-The philosophy of the GNU Project says that <b>everyone</b> shall have
-the granted right to use a program, to copy it, and to change it to
-make it fit his or her needs. The <b>only</b> restriction the GNU
-General Public License makes, is that <b>NO ONE</b> has the right to
-take away this freedom from anyone else.</p>
-
-<p>
-When an author puts his code under the GNU GPL, the freedom is an
-inseperable part of his program. Of course, this is a thorn in the
-side of a lot of businesses eyes because it stops them from taking the
-code, modifying it, and then selling it as a proprietary program. As
-long as there are people who try to live the dream of instant wealth
-it is this freedom that stops firms like Microsoft from corrupting the
-future development of our system.</p>
-
-<p>
-The most used argument against the GNU Philosophy is probably that
-software is the “intellectual property” of the programmer
-and it is only right if he can decide the price for which the program
-is distributed. This argument is easy to understand for everyone since
-it is exactly what we have been told to believe during the last 20
-years.</p>
-
-<p>
-Reality is a little different, though. Private programmers who can
-live off selling self-written software are the exception. Usually they
-give their rights to the firm they work at and this firm earns the
-money by restricting access to that program. Effectively, the
-firm has the rights for that program and decides it's price
-—not the programmer.</p>
-
-<p>
-A lawyer who invents an especially brilliant strategy has no right to
-claim it as his “intellectual property;” the method is
-freely available to anyone. Why do we so willingly accept the concept
-that every line of code—no matter how poorly written or
-uninspired it may be—is so unique and incredibly personal ? The
-zeal for control has taken over in a way that even human genes are
-subject to patents…although usually not by the people who
-“use” them. Should really <b>everything</b> be allowed to
-be patented and licensed?</p>
-
-<p>
-This is the question that is one of the core thoughts of the GNU
-Project. Let us just imagine there would be no such concept as
-patented software or patenting software would be unusual because
-everyone published his programs under the GNU GPL.</p>
-
-<p>
-Solutions for standard problems that had to be solved over and over
-again can be accessed easily. No one has to waste his time ever again
-to work on the same problem dozens of times—programmers could
-search for new ways and approach new problems. If a group of users
-needs a certain feature in a program they just hire a programmer and
-let him implement it. Freed of the limitations of licenses and money
-only two criteria would determine the development of programs: demand
-and quality.</p>
-
-<p>
-Speaking of quality—nowadays more and more firms realize that
-allowing the users to access the sourcecode gives them a huge
-advantage. To say it in a simple way: more eyes can see
-more. Solutions that are unimaginable for one person are painfully
-obvious for someone else. Due to this advantage Free Software is very
-often so much better than its proprietary counterpart. The train of
-thought that now appears to be establishing itself within some firms
-is to give users access to the source code but not grant any other
-rights. Improvements are obediently being sent back to the firm that
-advances it's product with them. Basically as a gigantic gratis
-development division. If we do not pay attention to these
-things <b>now</b> it might happen that in 5 years we will have to pay
-for a version that has been produced by applying our own patch.</p>
-
-<p>
-The concept of software as “intellectual property” carries
-the seed of doom inside itself (please forgive me for the pathos
-here). As long as we accept this concept, we accept the danger that
-another firm will attempt to take control. Microsoft is
-<em>not</em> evil incarnate as some people seem to percieve. Microsoft
-is <em>the natural consequence</em> of the widely accepted system.</p>
-
-<p>
-The fear of sawing the branch you're sitting on is also commonly
-spread, but completely irrational. Better programs lead to more users
-that have other needs and new ideas, creating more demand. The
-structure will change to fit the new situation but work will increase
-rather than decrease—and it will become less routine and hence
-more interesting.</p>
-
-<p>
-The last common fear that remains is the fear over lack of
-recognition. Well, the respect held for the frontmen of the different
-philosophies speaks for itself. I on my part would prefer to be as
-respected as Linus Thorvalds or Richard Stallman than having the
-reputation of Bill Gates.</p>
-
-<p>
-Admittedly, this does sound like bettering the world and idealism, but
-a lot of the really great ideas were driven by the wish to make the
-world a little better.</p>
-
-<p>
-And to settle one point very clearly: no, the GNU Project is not
-agains capitalism or firms in general and it is not against software
-firms in particular. We do not want to diminish the potential for
-profit—quite to the contrary. Every firm is being told to make
-as much money as they can off the sale of software, the documentation
-and the service—as long as they stick to the basic principles of
-Free Software.<br />
-The more these firms earn the more they can invest into the
-development of new software. We do not want to destroy the market, we
-just want to fit it to the times.</p>
-
-<p>
-One short note about the basic principles: of course Free Software
-also requires free documentation. It doesn't make any sense to free
-the successor of the book—software—while accepting control
-of the direct digital equivalent. Free documentation is as important
-as Free Software itself.</p>
-
-<p>
-Maybe someone discarded my statement about seeking to “fit the
-market to the times” as a rethorical stament—but it is an
-important point in the GNU Philosophy:<br />
-the time when software was only relevant for a few freaks and some
-firms is long gone. Nowadays software is the pathway to information. A
-system that blocks the pathways to information and in doing so the
-access to the information itself <b>must</b> be reconsidered.</p>
-
-<p>
-When Eric Raymond published the so called “Halloween
-Document” it triggered emotions from euphoria to paranoia. For
-those of you who did not read it: it is a Microsoft internal study in
-which the strengths and weaknesses of Free Software in general and
-Linux especially are analyzed. The author basically concluded that
-Microsoft has two possibilities to counter the threat.</p>
-
-<p>
-The first is the creation of new or modification of old protocols
-documenting them only poorly or not at all, so that only Windows-based
-machines will have a working implementation.</p>
-
-<p>
-One example of this tactic is the protocol used by HP
-“Cxi” printers which have entered the market as extremely
-cheap “Windows-Printers.” The specifications have only
-been given to Microsoft, so these printers are not usable by any other
-system.</p>
-
-<p>
-I have been told by a “professionally trained” computer
-salesperson that the “for Windows” sticker means that the
-printer needs a very special kind of RAM that only Windows machines
-have—that's why it cannot be used under Linux. Something like
-this confuses the typical user, which brings me directly to the second
-described tactic.</p>
-
-<p>
-These tactics are usually gathered under the synonym “FUD”
-(Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and were used by IBM long before Microsoft
-unconvered them. The idea is clear: If you make someone uncertain
-enough, he or she will not dare to make <b>any</b> decission,
-effectively remaining in his or her current position. That is the
-thought.</p>
-
-<p>
-For all times, education has been the arch-enemy of superstition.
-We must not allow education to be hindered by allowing ourselves to
-become split.</p>
-
-<p>
-The most recogniziable split in the recent history has been the
-already noted distinction between “Open Source” and
-“Free Software.” Telling both concepts apart is not an
-easy task even for most insiders and it is only understandable if
-viewed in a historical context. Since this is a central point I'd like
-to say a few words about it.</p>
-
-<p>
-With the completion of the GNU System with the Linux Kernel there was
-suddenly a complete, powerful, free system available. This inevitably
-had to raise the public's attention sooner or later.</p>
-
-<p>
-When this attention came a lot of firms were disconcerted by the word
-“Free.” The first association was “no money”
-which immediatly meant “no profit” for them. When people
-then tried to tell them the “Free” truly stands for
-“Freedom” they were completely shaken.</p>
-
-<p>
-Infected by this insecurity and doubt the idea arose to avoid words
-like “Free” and “Freedom” at all costs. The
-term “Open Source” was born.</p>
-
-<p>
-Admittedly it is easier to sell the idea is you use the term
-“Open Source” instead of “Free
-Software.”<br />
-But it has the consequence that the “newbies” have no
-knowledge or understanding of the original idea. It splits the
-movement and leads to incredibly unproductive trench wars that waste a
-huge amount of creative energy.</p>
-
-<p>
-A larger interested audience does not mean we should talk less about
-the underlying philosophy. Quite to the contrary: the more people and
-firms do not understand that this freedom is also in their interest,
-the more we need to talk about it. The Freedom of software offers a
-huge potential for all of us—firms and users.</p>
-
-<p>
-The plan is not to remove capitalism or destroy firms. We want to
-change the understanding of software for the benefit of all
-participants to fit the needs of the 21 century. This is the core of
-the GNU Project.</p>
-
-<p>
-Each of us can do his share - be it in form of a program,
-documentation, or just by spreading the word that there is another way
-of handling things.</p>
-
-<p>
-It is crucial to explain to the firms that Free Software is <b>no
-threat</b>, but an opportunity. Of course this doesn't happen
-overnight but when all participants realize the possibilities and
-perspectives, all of us will win. So if you are working in the
-software business, make yourself at home with the topic, talk about it
-with friends and colleagues. And please refrain from trying to
-“missionize” them—I know most of us have this
-tendency - the arguments speak for themselves. Give them the time and
-the peace to think it over and to befriend themselves with the
-concept. Show them that the concept of Freedom is nothing to be
-feared.</p>
-
-<p>
-I hope I was able to convey the philosophy or at least stimulate
-consideration of some new ideas. If you have questions or would like
-to discuss some things, I'll be here all night and all questions are
-welcome. I wish everyone a very interesting night. Thank you.</p>
-
-</div>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.</p>
-<p>
-Please send comments on this speech to Georg Greve
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a></p>
-
-<p>
-Please see the
-<a href="/server/standards/README.translations">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
-translations of this article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright © 1998 Georg C. F. Greve
-<br />
-<a id="Permission">Permission</a> is granted to make and distribute
-verbatim copies of this transcript as long as the copyright and this
-permission notice appear.</p>
-
-<p>
-Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/04/21 22:46:36 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-
-<div id="translations">
-<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
-
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical. -->
-<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is Deutsch.-->
-<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm> -->
-<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities -->
-
-<ul class="translations-list">
-<!-- German -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/greve-clown.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
-<!-- English -->
-<li><a href="/philisophy/greve-clown.en.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-</ul>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy .symlinks greve-clown.de.html sp...,
Yavor Doganov <=