[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-software-even-more-importan...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-software-even-more-importan... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 9 Jun 2017 02:59:04 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 17/06/09 02:59:04
Modified files:
philosophy : free-software-even-more-important.ja.html
free-software-even-more-important.sq.html
free-software-even-more-important.uk.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html
free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html
free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.sq.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-software-even-more-important.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- free-software-even-more-important.ja.html 11 Jan 2017 02:58:48 -0000
1.9
+++ free-software-even-more-important.ja.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04 -0000
1.10
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-04-10" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>èªç±ã½ããã¦ã§ã¢ã¯ãã¾ãããã«éè¦ã </h2>
<p><a
href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>ãªãã£ã¼ãã»ã¹ãã¼ã«ãã³</strong></a>è</p>
@@ -202,7 +208,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2017/01/11 02:58:48 $
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-software-even-more-important.sq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.sq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- free-software-even-more-important.sq.html 1 Feb 2017 12:01:15 -0000
1.11
+++ free-software-even-more-important.sq.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04 -0000
1.12
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.sq.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.sq.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-04-10" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.sq.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.sq.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.sq.html" -->
<h2>Software-i i Lirë Tani Ãshtë Edhe Më i Rëndësishëm</h2>
<p>nga <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -386,7 +392,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
U përditësua më:
-$Date: 2017/02/01 12:01:15 $
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-software-even-more-important.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- free-software-even-more-important.uk.html 1 Feb 2017 12:01:15 -0000
1.7
+++ free-software-even-more-important.uk.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04 -0000
1.8
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-04-10" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>ÐÑлÑне пÑогÑамне забезпеÑÐµÐ½Ð½Ñ Ñе
важливÑÑим заÑаз</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Ð ÑÑаÑд
СÑолмен</strong></a></p>
@@ -379,7 +385,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2017/02/01 12:01:15 $
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html
diff -N po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-software-even-more-important.ja-diff.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts them</a>. That directory lists around <span
class="removed"><del><strong>260</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>300</em></ins></span> different
+malicious functionalities (as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Jan</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Apr</em></ins></span> 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<p>Even when proprietary software isn't downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its users.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2015, 2017 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html
diff -N po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-software-even-more-important.sq-diff.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts them</a>. That directory lists around <span
class="removed"><del><strong>260</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>300</em></ins></span> different
+malicious functionalities (as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Jan</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Apr</em></ins></span> 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<p>Even when proprietary software isn't downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its users.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2015, 2017 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-software-even-more-important.uk-diff.html 9 Jun 2017 06:59:04
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts them</a>. That directory lists around <span
class="removed"><del><strong>260</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>300</em></ins></span> different
+malicious functionalities (as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Jan</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Apr</em></ins></span> 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<p>Even when proprietary software isn't downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its users.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2015, 2017 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/06/09 06:59:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-software-even-more-importan...,
GNUN <=