[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html server/body...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html server/body... |
|
Date: |
Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:00:42 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 19/08/19 10:00:42
Modified files:
philosophy : shouldbefree.fi.html
server : body-include-2.fi.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : shouldbefree.fi-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.fi-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/body-include-2.fi.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Patches:
Index: philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html 20 Feb 2017 21:03:48 -0000 1.7
+++ philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html 19 Aug 2019 14:00:40 -0000 1.8
@@ -1,25 +1,14 @@
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE" value=''
- --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html"
- --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value=""
- --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2002-06-12" -->
-
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="fi" lang="fi">
-
-<!-- TRANSLATORS: This page was generated locally by GNUN. Please do
- not update it manually, update the corresponding PO file instead.
- The PO is archived in trans-coord task #14377 (file: orphan-POs.tar.gz).
- For more info, contact address@hidden. -->
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html" -->
-<head>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/head-include-1.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.fi.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
<title>Miksi ohjelmistojen pitäisi olla vapaita - GNU-projekti - Free Software
Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.fi.html" -->
<h2>Miksi ohjelmistojen pitäisi olla vapaita</h2>
<p>
@@ -31,7 +20,7 @@
kopio ohjelmistosta ja että hän tapaa jonkun toisen, joka myös haluaisi
kopion. Oletetaan lisäksi, että he pystyisivät lisäkopion tekemään. Kenen
tulisi päättää, tehdäänkö kopio? Kyseisten henkilöiden? Vai jonkun muun
-osapuolen, vaikkapa âomistajanâ?</p>
+osapuolen, vaikkapa "omistajan"?</p>
<p>
Ohjelmistojen kehittäjät tarkastelevat yleensä ongelmaa
silmämääränään
kriteeri, jonka mukaan kysymys on ratkaistava niin, että ohjelmistojen
@@ -66,8 +55,8 @@
esittäneet kaksi argumenttia, jotka tukevat heidän omistusvaadettaan:
tunteellisen argumentin ja taloudellisen argumentin.</p>
<p>
- Tunteellinen perustelu kuuluu: âTein ohjelman hiki otsalla, koko
sydämelläni
-ja sielullani. Se syntyi <em>minusta</em>, se on <em>minun</em>!â</p>
+ Tunteellinen perustelu kuuluu: "Tein ohjelman hiki otsalla, koko
sydämelläni
+ja sielullani. Se syntyi <em>minusta</em>, se on <em>minun</em>!"</p>
<p>
Tämä argumetti ei kaipaa vakavaa kumoamista. Kiintyminen ohjelmistoon on
tunne, jota ohjelmoijat elättelevät ja kasvattavat kun se heille sopii, se
@@ -79,11 +68,11 @@
merkityksellinen. Tärkeää oli teoksen tekeminen â ja teoksen tehtävä.
Tämä
näkemys oli vallalla vuosisatoja.</p>
<p>
- Taloudellinen perustelu kuuluu: âHaluan rikastua (usein tätä kuvataan
+ Taloudellinen perustelu kuuluu: "Haluan rikastua (usein tätä kuvataan
epätarkasti myös âelannon hankkimiseksiâ) ja jos en saa rikastua
ohjelmoimalla, niin en ohjelmoi ollenkaan. Kaikki ovat samaa mieltä
kanssani, joten pian kukaan ei enää ohjelmoi. Ja sitten kenelläkään ei ole
-enää ohjelmistoja!â Tämä uhkaus naamioidaan usein ystävälliseksi ja
+enää ohjelmistoja!" Tämä uhkaus naamioidaan usein ystävälliseksi ja
viisaaksi neuvoksi.</p>
<p>
Selitän myöhemmin, miksi tämä uhkaus on hämäystä. Haluan ensin
tarttua
@@ -101,17 +90,17 @@
Järjestelmässä, jossa tunnustetaan immateriaalisia, intellektuaalisia
omaisuuksia, ohjelmistot liitetään yleensä omistajaan, joka päättää
ohjelmiston käytöstä. Niin kauan kun tämä yhteys on olemassa, joudumme
usein
-valitsemaan omistetun ohjelmiston ja ohjelmistottomuuden välillä. Tämä
+valitsemaan epävapaan ohjelmiston ja ohjelmistottomuuden välillä. Tämä
yhteys ei kuitenkaan ole välttämätön eikä sisäsyntyinen, vaan juuri
kyseenalaistamamme yhteiskunnallisen ja poliittisen päätöksen â
päätöksen,
jonka mukaan ohjelmistoilla on omistaja â seuraus. Jos ongelma esitetään
-valintana omistettujen ohjelmistojen ja ohjelmistottomuuden välillä, on koko
+valintana epävapaiden ohjelmistojen ja ohjelmistottomuuden välillä, on koko
ongelma ohitettu.</p>
<h3 id="against-having-owners">Omistajuuden vastainen argumentti</h3>
<p>
- Tarkastelemme kysymystä: âPitäisikö ohjelmistojen kehittämisen
liittyä
-omistajiin, jotka rajoittavat ohjelmiston käyttöä?â</p>
+ Tarkastelemme kysymystä: "Pitäisikö ohjelmistojen kehittämisen liittyä
+omistajiin, jotka rajoittavat ohjelmiston käyttöä?"</p>
<p>
Vastataksemme kysymykseen meidän on tarkastaltava näitä kahtaa asiaa ja
niiden vaikutusta yhteiskuntaan toisistaan Vastataksemme kysymykseen meidän
@@ -134,9 +123,9 @@
toisiinsa kahta mahdollista maailmaa.</p>
<p>
Tällainen arviointi vastaa myös siihen toisinaan esitettyyn
yksinkertaiseen
-vasta-argumenttiin, jonka mukaan âse hyöty, jonka uusi käyttäjä saa
+vasta-argumenttiin, jonka mukaan "se hyöty, jonka uusi käyttäjä saa
ohjelmiston kopiosta vastaa sitä haittaa, jonka kopion tekeminen aiheuttaa
-ohjelmiston omistajalle.â Tämä vasta-argumentti olettaa, että hyöty ja
+ohjelmiston omistajalle." Tämä vasta-argumentti olettaa, että hyöty ja
haitta ovat yhtä suuret. Arviossa vertaamme hyödyn ja haitan määrää ja
osoitamme, että hyöty on paljon suurempi.</p>
<p>
@@ -181,7 +170,7 @@
vähemmän haitallisella tavalla.</p>
<p>
Käyttääkseni samaa argumenttia ohjelmistojen kehittämisen kohdalla,
tulen
-seuraavassa osoittamaan, että ohjelmistojen käyttämisen âtullikopitâ
tulevat
+seuraavassa osoittamaan, että ohjelmistojen käyttämisen "tullikopit" tulevat
yhteiskunnalle hyvin kalliiksi: maksullisuus tekee ohjelmistojen
kehittämisestä ja jakelemisesta kalliimpaa ja niiden käytöstä
tehottomampaa
ja epämukavampaa. Johtopäätös on, että ohjelmistojen kehittämistä tulisi
@@ -289,8 +278,8 @@
ystäväsikään tulisi hyväksyä tällaista mallia.</p>
<p>
Tavanomaisen ohjelmiston käyttö- tai lisenssisopimuksen hyväksyminen
-merkitsee lähimmäisen pettämistä: âLupaan evätä lähimmäiseltäni
oikeuden
-käyttää tätä ohjelmistoa, jotta saan itse käyttöoikeuden.â Ihmiset,
jotka
+merkitsee lähimmäisen pettämistä: "Lupaan evätä lähimmäiseltäni
oikeuden
+käyttää tätä ohjelmistoa, jotta saan itse käyttöoikeuden." Ihmiset,
jotka
hyväksyvät tällaisia sopimuksia, saattavat tuntea psykologista painetta
sopimusten oikeuttamiseen esimerkiksi vähättelemällä lähimmäisen
auttamisen
tärkeyttä â näin yhteisön henki kärsii. Tämä on ohjelman käytön
@@ -310,8 +299,8 @@
Myös ohjelmoijat kärsivät psykososiaalista vahinkoa, koska tietävät,
että
monia ihmisiä estetään käyttämästä heidän työtään. Tämä johtaa
kyyniseen tai
välinpitämättömään asenteeseen. Ohjelmoija saattaa kuvata innostuneesti
-teknisesti haastavaa työtään, mutta kun häneltä kysytään âSaanko
käyttää
-sitä?â, hänen ilmeensä synkkenee ja vastaus on: âEtâ. Jotta
ohjelmoija ei
+teknisesti haastavaa työtään, mutta kun häneltä kysytään "Saanko
käyttää
+sitä?", hänen ilmeensä synkkenee ja vastaus on: "Et". Jotta ohjelmoija ei
tuntisi oloaan pettyneeksi, hän joko välttää huomioimasta käytön
rajoittamista tai ottaa kyynisen asenteen, jonka tarkoitus on vähätellä
käyttörajoitusten merkittävyyttä.</p>
@@ -334,11 +323,11 @@
helposti muuttamaan näitä numerosarjoja niin, että ohjelmisto toimisi
toisin.</p>
<p>
- Ohjelmoijat työskentelevät yleensä ohjelmiston âlähdekoodinâ
+ Ohjelmoijat työskentelevät yleensä ohjelmiston "lähdekoodin"
kanssa. Lähdekoodi on kirjoitettu Fortranin tai C:n tapaisilla
ohjelmointikielillä. Ohjelmointikieli käyttää nimiä kuvaamaan käsiteltyä
informaatiota ja ohjelmiston osia, ja ohjelmiston toimintoja kuvataan
-symboleilla: â+â tarkoittaa yhteenlaskua ja â-â
+symboleilla: "+" tarkoittaa yhteenlaskua ja "-"
vähennyslaskua. Ohjelmoitikielellä kirjoitetun lähdekoodin tarkoitus on
helpottaa ohjelmiston lukemista ja muuttamista. Esimerkiksi ohjelma, joka
laskee kahden samalla tasolla olevan pisteen välisen etäisyyden:</p>
@@ -423,18 +412,18 @@
onnettomia eivätkä tee hyvää työtä.</p>
<p>
Kuvitellaanpa, miltä vaikuttaisi, jos reseptejä kohdeltaisiin samoin
tavoin
-kuin ohjelmistoja. Voisit vaikka kysyä âMiten tätä reseptiä voi muuttaa
-vähäsuolaisemmaksi?â ja kokkimestari vastaisi: âKuinka julkeat loukata
+kuin ohjelmistoja. Voisit vaikka kysyä "Miten tätä reseptiä voi muuttaa
+vähäsuolaisemmaksi?" ja kokkimestari vastaisi: "Kuinka julkeat loukata
reseptiäni, aivojeni ja makunystyjeni lasta, kuvittelemalla muuttavasi sitä?
-Et osaa muuttaa reseptiäni niin, että se toimisi!â</p>
+Et osaa muuttaa reseptiäni niin, että se toimisi!"</p>
<p>
- âMutta lääkärini määräsi minut syömään vähemmän suolaa. Mitä
teen? Otatko
-suolan pois puolestani?â</p>
+ "Mutta lääkärini määräsi minut syömään vähemmän suolaa. Mitä
teen? Otatko
+suolan pois puolestani?"</p>
<p>
- âMielelläni, palkkioni on vain 50000 dollaria.â Koska omistajalla on
-monopoli muutosten suhteen, palkkio tuppaa olemaan suuri. âJuuri nyt minulla
+ "Mielelläni, palkkioni on vain 50000 dollaria." Koska omistajalla on
+monopoli muutosten suhteen, palkkio tuppaa olemaan suuri. "Juuri nyt minulla
on kuitenkin kiire. Olen juuri suunnittelemassa uutta reseptiä Laivaston
-korpuille. Palaan asiaan parissa vuodessa.â</p>
+korpuille. Palaan asiaan parissa vuodessa."</p>
<h4 id="software-development">Ohjelmistojen kehittämisen estäminen</h4>
<p>
@@ -444,7 +433,7 @@
osia uudelleen ominaisuuksia lisätäkseen, seuraava ohjelmoija kirjoitti
jonkun pätkän taas uudelleen ja lisäsi taas uusia ominaisuuksia, ja niin
edelleen; joissakin tapauksissa kehitys jatkui parinkymmenen vuoden
-ajan. Samaan aikaan joitakin ohjelmiston osia âkannibalisoitiinâ uusien
+ajan. Samaan aikaan joitakin ohjelmiston osia "kannibalisoitiin" uusien
ohjelmistojen iduiksi.</p>
<p>
Omitajuus estää tällaisen kehityksen, koska uutta ohjelmistoa luotaessa
on
@@ -505,8 +494,8 @@
korvike. Korvikkeen tuotannon kannustaminen ei ole järkevä tapa pyrkiä
tavoitteeseemme.</p>
<p>
- Vaclav Havel on lausunut kehoituksen: âTee työtä jonkin asian puolesta,
-koska se on oikein, eikä vain siksi, että se saattaa onnistua.â
+ Vaclav Havel on lausunut kehoituksen: "Tee työtä jonkin asian puolesta,
+koska se on oikein, eikä vain siksi, että se saattaa onnistua."
Kaupallisella, omistetulla ohjelmistolla on mahdollisuus onnistua omien
tavoitteidensa suhteen, mutta se ei ole hyväksi yhteiskunnalle.</p>
@@ -545,7 +534,7 @@
<p>
Tällainen muutos tapahtui tietokoneohjelmoinnissa
80-luvulla. Seitsemänkymmentäluvulla ilmestyi artikkeleita
-âtietokone-addiktioistaâ; käyttäjillä oli tapana âroikkua
linjoillaâ satojen
+"tietokone-addiktioista"; käyttäjillä oli tapana "roikkua linjoilla" satojen
markkojen edestä viikossa. Oli yleisesti tiedossa, että usein ihmiset
ihastuivat ohjelmointiin niin, että heidän avioliittonsa
kariutuivat. Nykyään on yleisesti tiedossa, ettei kukaan suostu ohjelmoimaan
@@ -558,7 +547,7 @@
kuluttua ihmisten muutettua asenteitaan he ovat taas valmiita
työskentelemään alalla saavutusten tuottama ilo palkkanaan.</p>
<p>
- Kysymys âMiten meillä on varaa maksaa ohjelmoijille?â muuttuu
helpommaksi,
+ Kysymys "Miten meillä on varaa maksaa ohjelmoijille?" muuttuu helpommaksi,
kun ymmärrämme, ettei heille tarvitse maksaa omaisuuksia. Elantoon riittävä
palkka on helpompi maksaa.</p>
@@ -584,9 +573,9 @@
omistettujen ohjelmistojen kehittämistä.</p>
<p>
Nykyään on tavallista, että yliopistojen tutkijat kehittävät apurahojen
-avulla ohjelmistoja lähes loppuun, kutsuvat niitä âvalmiiksiâ, ja sitten
+avulla ohjelmistoja lähes loppuun, kutsuvat niitä "valmiiksi", ja sitten
perustavat yhtiön joka tosiasiassa saattaa ohjelmiston valmiiksi ja
-käyttökelpoiseksi. Jokus keskeneräinen versio annetaan âvapaastiâ
käyttöön;
+käyttökelpoiseksi. Jokus keskeneräinen versio annetaan "vapaasti"
käyttöön;
läpikotaisin korruptoituneet tutkijat lisensoivat senkin yliopiston
eksklusiivisella lisenssillä. Tämä ei ole mikään salaisuus, käytännön
tunnustavat kaikki osapuolet. Vaikka tutkijat eivät tuntisi näitä
@@ -612,7 +601,7 @@
rahoituksesta saadaan käyttäjiltä, jotka tilaavat ohjelmistoja
postitse. Ohjelmistot ovat vapaita eli käyttäjät saavat kopioida ja muuttaa
niitä, mutta monet maksavat ohjelmistosta tästä huolimatta. (Muistettakoon,
-että âvapaa ohjelmistoâ viittaa vapauteen, ei hintaan.) Jotkut
käyttäjät
+että "vapaa ohjelmisto" viittaa vapauteen, ei hintaan.) Jotkut käyttäjät
tilaavat ja maksavat ohjelmiston kopiosta, vaikka heillä ohjelmisto jo
onkin, koske he katsovat, että me ansaitsemme heidän panoksensa. Säätiö
saa
myös huomattavia lahjoituksia tietokoneiden valmistajilta.</p>
@@ -680,12 +669,12 @@
nämä henkilöt usein hyväksyvät laajalle levinneen väitteen, jonka mukaan
ohjelmistotuotanto kaipaa tuottavuuden kasvua. Miten tämä on mahdollista?</p>
<p>
- âOhjelmistotuottavuusâ voi tarkoittaa kahta eri asiaa: kaiken
+ "Ohjelmistotuottavuus" voi tarkoittaa kahta eri asiaa: kaiken
ohjelmistokehityksen yleistä tuottavuutta tai yksittäisten
ohjelmointihakkeiden tuottavuutta. Yhteiskunnan kannalta yleinen tuottavuus
on kehittämisen arvoinen ja suoraviivaisin kehittämisen tapa on poistaa ne
keinotekoiset yhteistyön esteet, jotka laskevat
-tuottavuutta. âOhjelmistotuottavuuttaâ tutkivat tutkijat keskittyvät
+tuottavuutta. "Ohjelmistotuottavuutta" tutkivat tutkijat keskittyvät
kuitenkin termin toiseen, rajoitettuun merkitykseen, jonka puitteissa kasvu
vaatii vaikeita teknologisia edistysaskeleita.</p>
@@ -710,7 +699,7 @@
<p>
Kilpailu muuttuu taisteluksi, kun kilpailijat ryhtyvät vahingoittamaan
toisiaan sen sijaan että edistäisivät omia mahdollisuuksiaan, kun lause
-âParas voittakoonâ muuttuu lauseeksi âMinä voitan, olin paras tai en.â
+"Paras voittakoon" muuttuu lauseeksi "Minä voitan, olin paras tai en."
Omistettu ohjelmisto on haitallinen siksi, että se edustaa yhteiskuntamme
jäsenten välistä taistelua, ei siksi että se edustaa kilpailua.</p>
<p>
@@ -729,7 +718,7 @@
yritysjohtajat keksivät uusia lain sallimia taistelun muotoja. Yhteiskunnan
voimavaroja tuhlataan lahkojen väliseen taloudelliseen sisällissotaan.</p>
-<h3 id="communism">âMikset muuta Venäjälle?â</h3>
+<h3 id="communism">"Mikset muuta Venäjälle?"</h3>
<p>
Jokainen, joka Yhdysvalloissa kannattaa jotakin muuta kuin äärimmäistä
laissez-faire itsekkyyttä, saa usein kuulla tämän kysymyksen. Se esitetään
@@ -745,7 +734,7 @@
Kommunistisen puolueen jäsenten hyväksi. Kopiointivälineet olivat tarkassa
valvonnassa laittoman kopioinnin estämiseksi.</p>
<p>
- Amerikkalainen henkisiin immateriaalioikeuksiin perustuva järjestelmä
valvoo
+ Amerikkalais-henkisiin immateriaalioikeuksiin perustuva järjestelmä valvoo
ohjelman levitystä ja kopiointivälineitä automatisoiduilla
kopiosuojausmenetelmillä laittoman kopioinnin estämiseksi.</p>
<p>
@@ -788,11 +777,11 @@
Näiden ihmisten on tärkeää tietää, että kyseinen oletus ei ole eikä
ole
koskaan ollutkaan osa oikeusperinnettämme.</p>
<p>
- Yhdysvaltain perustuslaki sanoo, että tekijänoikeuden tarkoitus on
âedistää
-tieteen ja taiteiden kehitystäâ. Korkein oikeus on tulkinnut (tapauksessa
-<em>Fox Film vastaan Doyal</em>) tätä seuraavasti: âYhdysvaltain ainoa
-intressi ja tekijälle annetun yksinoikeuden ainoa tarkoitus kohdistuu
-yleisön tekijöiden teoksista saamaan hyötyyn.â</p>
+ Yhdysvaltain perustuslaki sanoo, että tekijänoikeuden tarkoitus on
"edistää
+tieteen ja taiteiden kehitystä". Korkein oikeus on tulkinnut (tapauksessa
+<em>Fox Film vastaan Doyal</em>) tätä seuraavasti: "Yhdysvaltain ainoa
+kiinnostus ja tekijälle annetun yksinoikeuden ainoa tarkoitus kohdistuu
+yleisön tekijöiden teoksista saamaan hyötyyn."</p>
<p>
Meidän ei ole pakko olla samaa mieltä kuin perustuslaki tai korkein
oikeus. (Yhteen aikaan molemmat hyväksyivät orjuuden.) Näin ollen
@@ -809,9 +798,9 @@
<p>
Ohjelmistojen rajoittaminen on yksi muoto tavastamme laiminlyödä yhteisön
hyvä henkilökohtaisen edun nimissä. Voimme jäljittää tämän
laiminlyönnin
-kulkua Ronald Reaganista James Bakeriin, Ivan Boeskystä Esso-yhtiöön,
-pettävistä pankeista pettäviin kouluihin. Laiminlyönnin määrää voidaan
-mitata kodittomien ja vankien määrällä. Yhteisöllisyyden vastainen
ilmapiiri
+kulkua Ronald Reaganista Dick Cheneyhin, Exxonista Enroniin, epäonnistuvista
+pankeista epäonnistuviin kouluihin. Laiminlyönnin määrää voidaan mitata
+kodittomien ja vankien määrällä. Yhteisöllisyyden vastainen ilmapiiri
ruokkii itseään, sillä mitä useammin huomaamme toisten laiminlyövän
meidän
auttamisemme, sitä turhemmalta tuntuu heitä auttaa. Näin yhteiskunta
rappeutuu viidakoksi.</p>
@@ -823,10 +812,11 @@
alalla korvaamme viidakon tehokkaammalla, vapaaehtoiseen yhteistyöhön
kannustavalla ja perustuvalla järjestelmällä.</p>
+
<h3 id="footnotes">Viittet</h3>
<ol>
-<li id="f1">Sana âvapaaâ ilmaisussa âvapaa ohjelmistoâ viittaa
vapauteen, ei
+<li id="f1">Sana "vapaa" ilmaisussa "vapaa ohjelmisto" viittaa vapauteen, ei
hintaan. Vapaasta ohjelmistosta maksettu hinta voi olla nolla tai pieni tai
(toisinaan) sangen suuri.</li>
@@ -862,11 +852,11 @@
</div>
<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.fi.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Ole hyvä ja lähetää FSF & GNU -kyselyt osoitteeseen <a
+<p>Ole hyvä ja lähetä FSF & GNU -kyselyt osoitteeseen <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. On myös muita tapoja
<a
href="/contact/">saada yhteys</a> FSF:ään. Lähetä ilmoitukset
toimimattomista linkeistä ja muut korjaukset (tai ehdotukset) osoitteeseen
@@ -887,33 +877,37 @@
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
-Ole hyvä ja katso linkkiä <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>
-jos haluat lisätietoa tämän artikkelin käännösten toimittamisesta ja
-koordinoinnista.</p>
+Me teemme kovaa työtä ja teemme parastamme luodaksemme tarkkoja, hyvän
+laadun käännöksiä. Mutta, mekään emme ole täydellisiä. Lähetä
kommentteja ja
+pyyntöjä tästä käännöksestä osoitteeseen:<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+lt;web-translators@gnu.orggt;</a>.</p> <p> Saadaksesi tietoa meidän
+verkkosivujemme käännösten lähettämisestä ja koordinoimisesta, lue <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"> Käännösten README
</a></p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation,
-Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017, 2018
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
-<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
-Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+<p>Tämä sivu on julkaistu <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative Commons
+Nimeä-EiMuutoksia 4.0-kansainvälisen lisenssin alla.</a></p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.fi.html" -->
<div class="translators-credits">
<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-Suomentanut Tere Vaden.</div>
+<b>Suomentanut</b> Pyry.</div>
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Päivitetty:
-$Date: 2017/02/20 21:03:48 $
+$Date: 2019/08/19 14:00:40 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div>
+<!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
Index: server/body-include-2.fi.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/body-include-2.fi.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- server/body-include-2.fi.html 19 Aug 2019 13:30:42 -0000 1.2
+++ server/body-include-2.fi.html 19 Aug 2019 14:00:42 -0000 1.3
@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
<div id="header">
<div id="fsf-frame">
<p id="join-fsf"><a
-href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?referrer=4052";>LIITY FSF:ÃÃN&nbsb;TÃNÃÃN</a></p>
+href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom?referrer=4052";>LIITY FSF:ÃÃN TÃNÃÃN</a></p>
<div id="fssbox">
-<p><a href="//www.fsf.org/fss">Vapaan Ohjelmiston Tukija</p>
+<p><a href="//www.fsf.org/fss">Vapaan Ohjelmiston Tukija</a></p>
<form action="https://my.fsf.org/civicrm/profile/create?reset=1&gid=31";
method="post" class="header">
<div>
Index: philosophy/po/shouldbefree.fi-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/shouldbefree.fi-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/shouldbefree.fi-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/shouldbefree.fi-en.html 19 Aug 2019 14:00:42 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,886 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<title>Why Software Should Be Free
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Software Should Be Free</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<h3 id="introduction">Introduction</h3>
+<p>
+The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
+decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one
+individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
+copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
+whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party,
+called the “owner”?</p>
+<p>
+ Software developers typically consider these questions on the
+assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
+profits. The political power of business has led to the government
+adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
+developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation
+associated with its development.</p>
+<p>
+ I would like to consider the same question using a different
+criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.</p>
+<p>
+ This answer cannot be decided by current law—the law should
+conform to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current
+practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible
+answers. The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is
+hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much. In other
+words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society
+as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production
+of material goods.</p>
+<p>
+ In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and
+show that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that
+programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute,
+study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">“free”
+software</a>.<a href="#f1">(1)</a></p>
+
+<h3 id="owner-justification">How Owners Justify Their Power</h3>
+<p>
+ Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
+offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
+emotional argument and the economic argument.</p>
+<p>
+ The emotional argument goes like this: “I put my sweat, my
+heart, my soul into this program. It comes from <em>me</em>,
+it's <em>mine</em>!”</p>
+<p>
+ This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of
+attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them;
+it is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same
+programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a
+salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast,
+consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't
+even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist
+was not important. What mattered was that the work was done—and
+the purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of
+years.</p>
+<p>
+ The economic argument goes like this: “I want to get rich
+(usually described inaccurately as ‘making a living’), and
+if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't
+program. Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program. And
+then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!” This threat is
+usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise.</p>
+<p>
+ I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to
+address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another
+formulation of the argument.</p>
+<p>
+ This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a
+proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
+proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
+should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two
+outcomes—proprietary software versus no software—and assuming
+there are no other possibilities.</p>
+<p>
+ Given a system of software copyright, software development is
+usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the
+software's use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced with
+the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage is
+not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
+social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
+have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
+versus no software is begging the question.</p>
+
+<h3 id="against-having-owners">The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
+<p>
+ The question at hand is, “Should development of software be linked
+with having owners to restrict the use of it?”</p>
+<p>
+ In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
+each of those two activities <em>independently</em>: the effect of developing
+the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect
+of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If
+one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be
+better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.</p>
+<p>
+ To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program
+already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical
+software developer will reject the option of doing so.</p>
+<p>
+ To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare
+the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with
+that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing
+two possible worlds.</p>
+<p>
+ This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
+made that “the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a
+copy of a program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.”
+This counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal
+in magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and
+shows that the benefit is much greater.</p>
+<p>
+ To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
+construction.</p>
+<p>
+ It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with
+tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners.
+Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It
+would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to
+pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction
+to smooth driving—artificial, because it is not a consequence of
+how roads or cars work.</p>
+<p>
+ Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find
+that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
+construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to
+use.<a href="#f2">(2)</a> In a poor country, tolls may make the roads
+unavailable to many citizens. The roads without toll booths thus
+offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for
+society. Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another
+way, not by means of toll booths. Use of roads, once built, should be
+free.</p>
+<p>
+ When the advocates of toll booths propose them as <em>merely</em> a
+way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll
+booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect,
+they degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road;
+giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement
+if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.</p>
+<p>
+ Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the
+public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability
+of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for
+our money by buying a free road.</p>
+<p>
+ I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all.
+That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used
+the road—but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector.
+However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and
+inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive
+fashion.</p>
+<p>
+ To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
+that having “toll booths” for useful software programs
+costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to
+construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and
+efficient to use. It will follow that program construction should be
+encouraged in some other way. Then I will go on to explain other
+methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding
+software development.</p>
+
+<h4 id="harm-done">The Harm Done by Obstructing Software</h4>
+<p>
+ Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
+necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
+choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use.
+Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a
+desirable thing.<a href="#f3">(3)</a></p>
+<p>
+ Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program
+cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can
+only be negative. But how much? And what kind?</p>
+<p>
+ Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Fewer people use the program.</li>
+
+<li>None of the users can adapt or fix the program.</li>
+
+<li>Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on
it.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial
+harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their
+subsequent feelings, attitudes, and predispositions. These changes in
+people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their
+relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material
+consequences.</p>
+<p>
+ The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the
+program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they
+waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program
+harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program.
+Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net
+direct material benefit.</p>
+<p>
+ However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
+is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.</p>
+
+<h4 id="obstructing-use">Obstructing Use of Programs</h4>
+<p>
+ The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy
+of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
+doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero
+price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program.
+If a widely useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it.</p>
+<p>
+ It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to
+society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of
+the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay,
+or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a
+zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone
+chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without
+benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be
+negative.</p>
+<p>
+ But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to <em>develop</em>
+the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in
+delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.</p>
+<p>
+ This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and
+cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material
+objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy;
+anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little
+effort. This isn't true for material objects because matter is
+conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same
+way that the first copy was built.</p>
+<p>
+ With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense,
+because fewer objects bought means less raw material and work needed
+to make them. It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a
+development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long
+as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the
+development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does
+not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.</p>
+<p>
+ However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free
+is a qualitative change. A centrally imposed fee for software
+distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.</p>
+<p>
+ What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even
+as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves
+enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping
+large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This
+cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
+of the waste caused by having owners.</p>
+
+<h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion">Damaging Social Cohesion</h4>
+<p>
+ Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
+certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
+that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it.
+A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while
+restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should
+find it acceptable.</p>
+<p>
+ Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
+neighbor: “I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so
+that I can have a copy for myself.” People who make such choices
+feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading
+the importance of helping one's neighbors—thus public spirit
+suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm
+of discouraging use of the program.</p>
+<p>
+ Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
+they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
+But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must
+break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider
+the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor
+(which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of
+psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses
+and laws have no moral force.</p>
+<p>
+ Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
+will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of
+cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
+work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, “Will I be
+permitted to use it?”, his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
+To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
+time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
+it.</p>
+<p>
+ Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States
+is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together
+for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
+expense of the latter.</p>
+
+<h4 id="custom-adaptation">Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs</h4>
+<p>
+ The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
+The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
+older technology. But most commercially available software isn't
+available for modification, even after you buy it. It's available for
+you to take it or leave it, as a black box—that is all.</p>
+<p>
+ A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose
+meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
+change the numbers to make the program do something different.</p>
+<p>
+ Programmers normally work with the “source code” for a
+program, which is written in a programming language such as Fortran or
+C. It uses names to designate the data being used and the parts of
+the program, and it represents operations with symbols such as
+‘+’ for addition and ‘-’ for subtraction. It
+is designed to help programmers read and change programs. Here is an
+example; a program to calculate the distance between two points in a
+plane:</p>
+
+<pre>
+ float
+ distance (p0, p1)
+ struct point p0, p1;
+ {
+ float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
+ float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
+ return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
+ }
+</pre>
+<p>
+ Precisely what that source code means is not the point; the point
+ is that it looks like algebra, and a person who knows this
+ programming language will find it meaningful and clear. By
+ contrast, here is same program in executable form, on the computer
+ I normally used when I wrote this:
+</p>
+
+<pre>
+ 1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862
+ 1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208
+ -234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424
+ 1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495
+ 572518958 -803143692 1314803317
+</pre>
+
+<p>
+ Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a
+program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source
+code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret
+by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive
+only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will
+execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the
+program.</p>
+<p>
+ A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for
+about six months, writing a program similar to something that was
+commercially available. She believed that if she could have gotten
+source code for that commercially available program, it could easily
+have been adapted to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for
+this, but was not permitted to—the source code was a secret. So
+she had to do six months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but
+was actually waste.</p>
+<p>
+ The <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>
+Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a
+gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software to which we
+added many convenient features. For example, the software would
+notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever the
+printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the
+software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
+queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.</p>
+<p>
+ Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first
+laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a
+separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite
+features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was
+sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually
+printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to
+find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And
+no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often
+went for an hour without being fixed.</p>
+<p>
+ The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such
+problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program.
+Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we
+were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.</p>
+<p>
+ Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank
+could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from
+scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.</p>
+<p>
+ Giving up causes psychosocial harm—to the spirit of
+self-reliance. It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot
+rearrange to suit your needs. It leads to resignation and
+discouragement, which can spread to affect other aspects of one's
+life. People who feel this way are unhappy and do not do good
+work.</p>
+<p>
+ Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
+fashion as software. You might say, “How do I change this
+recipe to take out the salt?” and the great chef would respond,
+“How dare you insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my
+palate, by trying to tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to
+change my recipe and make it work right!”</p>
+<p>
+ “But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I
+do? Will you take out the salt for me?”</p>
+<p>
+ “I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.”
+Since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large.
+“However, right now I don't have time. I am busy with a
+commission to design a new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy
+Department. I might get around to you in about two years.”</p>
+
+<h4 id="software-development">Obstructing Software Development</h4>
+<p>
+ The third level of material harm affects software development.
+Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a
+person would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one
+new feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add
+another feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty
+years. Meanwhile, parts of the program would be
+“cannibalized” to form the beginnings of other
+programs.</p>
+<p>
+ The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
+necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also
+prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn
+useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.</p>
+<p>
+ Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in
+computer science who have never seen the source code of a large
+program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't
+begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't
+see how others have done it.</p>
+<p>
+ In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by
+standing on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally
+allowed in the software field—you can only stand on the
+shoulders of the other people <em>in your own company</em>.</p>
+<p>
+ The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
+cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
+even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese
+oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific
+carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a
+note asking them to take good care of it.</p>
+<p>
+ Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared.
+Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers
+to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough
+to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is
+certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
+programs reported on is usually secret.</p>
+
+<h4 id="does-not-matter-how">It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted</h4>
+<p>
+ I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from
+copying, changing, and building on a program. I have not specified
+how this obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the
+conclusion. Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or
+licenses, or encryption, or <acronym title="Read-only Memory">ROM</acronym>
+cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it <em>succeeds</em> in
+preventing use, it does harm.</p>
+<p>
+ Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others.
+I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
+objective.</p>
+
+<h4 id="should-be-free">Software Should be Free</h4>
+<p>
+ I have shown how ownership of a program—the power to restrict
+changing or copying it—is obstructive. Its negative effects are
+widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have
+owners for programs.</p>
+<p>
+ Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free
+software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging
+the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.</p>
+<p>
+ Vaclav Havel has advised us to “Work for something because it is
+good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.” A business
+making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
+terms, but it is not what is good for society.</p>
+
+<h3 id="why-develop">Why People Will Develop Software</h3>
+<p>
+ If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging
+people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
+but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the
+overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if
+we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage
+development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money
+for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
+question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.</p>
+
+<h4 id="fun">Programming is Fun</h4>
+<p>
+ There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
+road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
+art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
+for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples
+include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
+political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly
+than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is
+funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the
+field, if they can afford to.</p>
+<p>
+ Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
+possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand
+the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing
+what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by,
+everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would
+be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise
+social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing
+special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.</p>
+<p>
+ This change happened in the field of computer programming in the
+1980s. In the 1970s, there were articles on
+“computer addiction”: users were “onlining”
+and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits. It was generally understood
+that people frequently loved programming enough to break up their
+marriages. Today, it is generally understood that no one would
+program except for a high rate of pay. People have forgotten what they
+knew back then.</p>
+<p>
+ When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
+certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic
+of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we
+take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the
+people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
+to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.</p>
+<p>
+ The question “How can we pay programmers?” becomes an
+easier question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them
+a fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.</p>
+
+<h4 id="funding">Funding Free Software</h4>
+<p>
+ Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
+Many other institutions already exist that can do this.</p>
+<p>
+ Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software
+development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In
+1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider
+restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join consortiums
+shows their realization that owning the software is not what is really
+important for them.</p>
+<p>
+ Universities conduct many programming projects. Today they often
+sell the results, but in the 1970s they did not. Is there any doubt
+that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed
+to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same
+government contracts and grants that now support proprietary software
+development.</p>
+<p>
+ It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
+develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and
+call that “finished”, and then start companies where they
+really finish the project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare
+the unfinished version “free”; if they are thoroughly
+corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university.
+This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned.
+Yet if the researchers were not exposed to the temptation to do these
+things, they would still do their research.</p>
+<p>
+ Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling
+services related to the software. I have been hired to port the
+<a href="/software/gcc/">GNU C compiler</a> to new hardware, and
+to make user-interface extensions to
+<a href="/software/emacs/">GNU Emacs</a>. (I offer these improvements
+to the public once they are done.) I also teach classes for which I
+am paid.</p>
+<p>
+ I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful,
+growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other
+companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the
+GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support
+industry—an industry that could become quite large if free
+software becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option
+generally unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very
+wealthy.</p>
+<p>
+ New institutions such as the <a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Free Software
+Foundation</a> can also fund programmers. Most of the Foundation's
+funds come from users buying tapes through the mail. The software on
+the tapes is free, which means that every user has the freedom to copy
+it and change it, but many nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall
+that “free software” refers to freedom, not to price.)
+Some users who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a
+contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation also receives
+sizable donations from computer manufacturers.</p>
+<p>
+ The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on
+hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a
+business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same
+fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.</p>
+<p>
+ Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the
+Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this
+because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction
+in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of
+all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers
+have written many useful programs for us. (Even technical writers
+have begun to volunteer.)</p>
+<p>
+ This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all
+fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one
+will want to program.</p>
+
+<h4 id="owe">What Do Users Owe to Developers?</h4>
+<p>
+ There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
+obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software
+are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in
+the long-term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.</p>
+<p>
+ However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers,
+since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.</p>
+<p>
+ We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled
+to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral
+obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A
+developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.</p>
+<p>
+ I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act
+so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for
+voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support
+developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
+radio and television stations.</p>
+
+<h3 id="productivity">What Is Software Productivity? </h3>
+<p>
+ If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
+fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?</p>
+<p>
+ Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than
+in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
+deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call
+this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer
+programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
+productivity at all levels:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li> Wider use of each program that is developed.</li>
+<li> The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
+ of starting from scratch.</li>
+<li> Better education of programmers.</li>
+<li> The elimination of duplicate development effort.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+ Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the
+employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased
+productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely held belief
+that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?</p>
+<p>
+ “Software productivity” can mean two different things:
+the overall productivity of all software development, or the
+productivity of individual projects. Overall productivity is what
+society would like to improve, and the most straightforward way to do
+this is to eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which
+reduce it. But researchers who study the field of “software
+productivity” focus only on the second, limited, sense of the
+term, where improvement requires difficult technological advances.</p>
+
+<h3 id="competition">Is Competition Inevitable?</h3>
+<p>
+ Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
+rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
+harmful; the harmful thing is <em>combat</em>.</p>
+<p>
+ There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying
+to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in
+the old days, there was competition among programming
+wizards—competition for who could make the computer do the most
+amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program
+for a given task. This kind of competition can benefit
+everyone, <em>as long as</em> the spirit of good sportsmanship is
+maintained.</p>
+<p>
+ Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
+great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have
+visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to
+do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on
+desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.</p>
+<p>
+ Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
+impede each other instead of advancing themselves—when
+“Let the best person win” gives way to “Let me win,
+best or not.” Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is
+a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the
+citizens of our society.</p>
+<p>
+ Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when
+two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
+operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a
+special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for
+combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all
+areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information
+that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.</p>
+<p>
+ Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to
+combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been banned with
+antitrust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than
+generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general,
+executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically
+prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
+equivalent of factional civil war.</p>
+
+<h3 id="communism">“Why Don't You Move to Russia?”</h3>
+<p>
+ In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
+form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
+example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care
+system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the
+free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for
+the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens
+have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with
+Communism. But how similar are these ideas?</p>
+<p>
+ Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of
+central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the
+common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist
+party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent
+illegal copying.</p>
+<p>
+ The American system of software copyright exercises central control
+over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with
+automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.</p>
+<p>
+ By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free
+to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their
+neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in
+their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on
+decentralization.</p>
+<p>
+ Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
+Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.</p>
+
+<h3 id="premises">The Question of Premises</h3>
+<p>
+ I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
+less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other
+words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide
+which course of action is best.</p>
+<p>
+ This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an
+author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else.
+They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software
+is to give the author's employer the advantage he
+deserves—regardless of how this may affect the public.</p>
+<p>
+ It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof
+requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed
+only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested
+in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners
+are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant.</p>
+<p>
+ But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise that
+elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly
+because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions
+of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means
+challenging the basis of society.</p>
+<p>
+ It is important for these people to know that this premise is not
+part of our legal tradition. It never has been.</p>
+<p>
+ Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
+“promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” The
+Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in <em>Fox Film
+v. Doyal</em> that “The sole interest of the United States
+and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in
+the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
+authors.”</p>
+<p>
+ We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
+Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions
+do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the
+awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
+traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.</p>
+
+<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3>
+<p>
+ We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
+but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
+the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite
+message.</p>
+<p>
+ Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard
+the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard
+from Ronald Reagan to Dick Cheney, from Exxon to Enron, from
+failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of
+the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial
+spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will
+not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays
+into a jungle.</p>
+<p>
+ If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes.
+We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who
+cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from
+others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to
+this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more
+efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.</p>
+
+
+<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3>
+
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">The word “free” in “free software”
+refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free
+program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.</li>
+
+<li id="f2">The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not
+alter this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to
+discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using
+toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax
+on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by
+limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road enhances
+the average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed
+limit.</li>
+
+<li id="f3">One might regard a particular computer program as a
+harmful thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus
+Marketplace database of personal information, which was withdrawn from
+sale due to public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to
+this case, but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on
+the grounds that the owner will make the program less available. The
+owner will not make it <em>completely</em> unavailable, as one would
+wish in the case of a program whose use is considered
+destructive.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published
+in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017, 2018
Free
+Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2019/08/19 14:00:42 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www philosophy/shouldbefree.fi.html server/body...,
GNUN <=