*** empty log message ***

1 files changed, 909 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..5327b7fd85a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT
@@ -0,0 +1,909 @@
+Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Stallman
+
+   Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
+of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
+permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
+recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this
+notice.
+
+   Modified versions may not be made.
+
+
+  The GNU Project
+
+   by Richard Stallman
+
+   originally published in the book "Open Sources"
+
+  The first software-sharing community
+
+   When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971,
+   I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for
+   many years.  Sharing of software was not limited to our particular
+   community; it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as
+   old as cooking.  But we did it more than most.
+
+   The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the
+   Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
+   designed and written in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one
+   of the large computers of the era.  As a member of this community, an
+   AI lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system.
+
+   We did not call our software "free software", because that term did
+   not yet exist; but that is what it was.  Whenever people from another
+   university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly
+   let them.  If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting
+   program, you could always ask to see the source code, so that you
+   could read it, change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new
+   program.
+
+   (1) The use of "hacker" to mean "security breaker" is a confusion on
+   the part of the mass media.  We hackers refuse to recognize that
+   meaning, and continue using the word to mean, "Someone who loves to
+   program and enjoys being clever about it."
+
+  The collapse of the community
+
+   The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital
+   discontinued the PDP-10 series.  Its architecture, elegant and powerful
+   in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address spaces
+   that were becoming feasible in the 80s.  This meant that nearly all of
+   the programs composing ITS were obsolete.
+
+   The AI lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before.  In
+   1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of the
+   hackers from the AI lab, and the depopulated community was unable to
+   maintain itself.  (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these
+   events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its
+   prime.)  When the AI lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its
+   administrators decided to use Digital's non-free timesharing system
+   instead of ITS.
+
+   The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had
+   their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you
+   had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.
+
+   This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not
+   to help your neighbor.  A cooperating community was forbidden.  The rule
+   made by the owners of proprietary software was, "If you share with
+   your neighbor, you are a pirate.  If you want any changes, beg us to
+   make them."
+
+   The idea that the proprietary software social system--the system that
+   says you are not allowed to share or change software--is antisocial,
+   that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise
+   to some readers.  But what else could we say about a system based on
+   dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the
+   idea surprising may have taken proprietary social system as given, or
+   judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software businesses.
+   Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince people that
+   there is only one way to look at the issue.
+
+   When software publishers talk about "enforcing" their "rights" or
+   "stopping piracy", what they actually *say* is secondary.  The real
+   message of these statements is in the unstated assumptions they take
+   for granted; the public is supposed to accept them uncritically.  So
+   let's examine them.
+
+   One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable
+   natural right to own software and thus have power over all its users.
+   (If this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to
+   the public, we could not object.)  Interestingly, the US Constitution
+   and legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural
+   right, but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the
+   users' natural right to copy.
+
+   Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+   software is what jobs it allows you to do--that we computer users
+   should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.
+
+   A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or, would
+   never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not
+   offer a company power over the users of the program.  This assumption
+   may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement
+   demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without
+   putting chains on it.
+
+   If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues
+   based on ordinary common-sense morality while placing the users first,
+   we arrive at very different conclusions.  Computer users should be free
+   to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software,
+   because helping other people is the basis of society.
+
+   There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning
+   behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web page,
+   <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html>.
+
+  A stark moral choice.
+
+   With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible.  Instead,
+   I faced a stark moral choice.
+
+   The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing
+   nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker.
+   Most likely I would also be developing software that was released
+   under nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other
+   people to betray their fellows too.
+
+   I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing
+   code.  But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on
+   years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life
+   making the world a worse place.
+
+   I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a
+   nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT
+   AI lab the source code for the control program for our printer.  (The
+   lack of certain features in this program made use of the printer
+   extremely frustrating.)  So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure
+   agreements were innocent.  I was very angry when he refused to share
+   with us; I could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone
+   else.
+
+   Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the
+   computer field.  That way my skills would not be misused, but they
+   would still be wasted.  I would not be culpable for dividing and
+   restricting computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.
+
+   So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the
+   good.  I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could
+   write, so as to make a community possible once again?
+
+   The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system.
+   That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer.  With an
+   operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run
+   the computer at all.  With a free operating system, we could again have
+   a community of cooperating hackers--and invite anyone to join.  And
+   anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by
+   conspiring to deprive his or her friends.
+
+   As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job.
+   So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
+   was elected to do the job.  I chose to make the system compatible with
+   Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
+   switch to it.  The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as
+   a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."
+
+   An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run
+   other programs.  In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the
+   name included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters,
+   debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more.  ITS had them, Multics
+   had them, VMS had them, and Unix had them.  The GNU operating system
+   would include them too.
+
+   Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1):
+
+   If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
+   If I am only for myself, what am I?
+   If not now, when?
+
+   The decision to start the GNU project was based on a similar spirit.
+
+   (1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
+   sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.
+
+  Free as in freedom
+
+   The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to
+   do with price.  It is about freedom.  Here, therefore, is the definition
+   of free software: a program is free software, for you, a particular
+   user, if:
+
+     * You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
+     * You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs.  (To
+       make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to
+       the source code, since making changes in a program without having
+       the source code is exceedingly difficult.)
+     * You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for
+       a fee.
+     * You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the
+       program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.
+
+   Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no
+   contradiction between selling copies and free software.  In fact, the
+   freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold
+   on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an
+   important way to raise funds for free software development.  Therefore,
+   a program which people are not free to include on these collections is
+   not free software.
+
+   Because of the ambiguity of "free", people have long looked for
+   alternatives, but no one has found a suitable alternative.  The English
+   Language has more words and nuances than any other, but it lacks a
+   simple, unambiguous, word that means "free," as in
+   freedom--"unfettered," being the word that comes closest in meaning.
+   Such alternatives as "liberated", "freedom" and "open" have either the
+   wrong meaning or some other disadvantage.
+
+  GNU software and the GNU system
+
+   Developing a whole system is a very large project.  To bring it into
+   reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software
+   wherever that was possible.  For example, I decided at the very
+   beginning to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years
+   later, I decided to use the X Window System rather than writing
+   another window system for GNU.
+
+   Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
+   collection of all GNU software.  The GNU system includes programs that
+   are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
+   projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
+   free software.
+
+  Commencing the project
+
+   In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software.
+   Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere
+   with distributing GNU as free software.  If I had remained on the
+   staff, MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed
+   their own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a
+   proprietary software package.  I had no intention of doing a large
+   amount of work only to see it become useless for its intended purpose:
+   creating a new software-sharing community.
+
+   However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+   invited me to keep using the lab's facilities.
+
+  The first steps
+
+   Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free
+   University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK.  (The Dutch word for
+   "free" is written with a V.)  This was a compiler designed to handle
+   multiple languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple
+   target machines.  I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it.
+
+   He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the
+   compiler was not.  I therefore decided that my first program for the
+   GNU project would be a multi-language, multi-platform compiler.
+
+   Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I
+   obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a
+   multi-platform compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab.  It
+   supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed
+   to be a system-programming language.  I added a C front end, and began
+   porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer.  But I had to give that up
+   when I discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack
+   space, and the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.
+
+   I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the
+   entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree
+   into a chain of "instructions", and then generating the whole output
+   file, without ever freeing any storage.  At this point, I concluded I
+   would have to write a new compiler from scratch.  That new compiler is
+   now known as GCC; none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, but I
+   managed to adapt and use the C front end that I had written.  But that
+   was some years later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs.
+
+  GNU Emacs
+
+   I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was
+   beginning to be usable.  This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to
+   do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done
+   my editing on other kinds of machines until then.
+
+   At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the
+   question of how to distribute it.  Of course, I put it on the anonymous
+   ftp server on the MIT computer that I used.  (This computer,
+   prep.ai.mit.edu, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site;
+   when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name
+   to our new ftp server.)  But at that time, many of the interested
+   people were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp.  So
+   the question was, what would I say to them?
+
+   I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make
+   a copy for you."  Or I could have done what I did with the original
+   PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail
+   it back with Emacs on it."  But I had no job, and I was looking for
+   ways to make money from free software.  So I announced that I would
+   mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150.  In this way, I
+   started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the
+   companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.
+
+  Is a program free for every user?
+
+   If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author,
+   this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone
+   who has a copy of it.  For example, public domain software (software
+   that is not copyrighted) is free software; but anyone can make a
+   proprietary modified version of it.  Likewise, many free programs are
+   copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive licenses which
+   allow proprietary modified versions.
+
+   The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System.
+   Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a permissive
+   license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies.  They added
+   X to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, and covered
+   by the same nondisclosure agreement.  These copies of X were no more
+   free software than Unix was.
+
+   The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+   problem--they expected and intended this to happen.  Their goal was not
+   freedom, just "success", defined as "having many users."  They did not
+   care whether these users had freedom, only that they should be
+   numerous.
+
+   This lead to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
+   counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
+   "Is this program free?" If you judged based on the freedom provided by
+   the distribution terms of the MIT release, you would say that X was
+   free software.  But if you measured the freedom of the average user of
+   X, you would have to say it was proprietary software.  Most X users
+   were running the proprietary versions that came with Unix systems, not
+   the free version.
+
+  Copyleft and the GNU GPL
+
+   The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular.  So
+   we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software
+   from being turned into proprietary software.  The method we use is
+   called "copyleft".(1)
+
+   Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
+   of its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it
+   becomes a means of keeping software free.
+
+   The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to
+   run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute
+   modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions of their
+   own.  Thus, the crucial freedoms that define "free software" are
+   guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.
+
+   For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free.  This
+   ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if
+   it is published.  When programmers who have jobs as programmers
+   volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their
+   employers from saying, "You can't share those changes, because we are
+   going to use them to make our proprietary version of the program."
+
+   The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to
+   ensure freedom for every user of the program.  The companies that
+   privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to
+   their systems and hardware.  These changes were small compared with the
+   great extent of X, but they were not trivial.  If making changes were
+   an excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone to
+   take advantage of the excuse.
+
+   A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code.
+   Such a combination would inevitably be non-free; whichever freedoms
+   are lacking for the non-free part would be lacking for the whole as
+   well.  To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to sink
+   a ship.  Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this
+   hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program must be
+   such that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted.
+
+   The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU
+   software is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short.  We
+   have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances.
+   GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of
+   copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary for
+   manuals.
+
+   (1) In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me
+   a letter.  On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings,
+   including this one: "Copyleft--all rights reversed." I used the word
+   "copyleft" to name the distribution concept I was developing at the
+   time.
+
+  The Free Software Foundation
+
+   As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved
+   in the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding
+   once again.  So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation, a
+   tax-exempt charity for free software development.  The FSF also took
+   over the Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by
+   adding other free software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by
+   selling free manuals as well.
+
+   The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from
+   sales--of copies of free software, and of other related services.
+   Today it sells CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely
+   printed manuals (all with freedom to redistribute and modify), and
+   Deluxe Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software
+   for your choice of platform).
+
+   Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a
+   number of GNU software packages.  Two notable ones are the C library
+   and the shell.  The GNU C library is what every program running on a
+   GNU/Linux system uses to communicate with Linux.  It was developed by a
+   member of the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath.  The
+   shell used on most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again
+   Shell(1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.
+
+   We funded development of these programs because the GNU project was
+   not just about tools or a development environment.  Our goal was a
+   complete operating system, and these programs were needed for that
+   goal.
+
+   (1) "Bourne again Shell" is a joke on the name ``Bourne Shell'', which
+   was the usual shell on Unix.
+
+  Free software support
+
+   The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business
+   practice, but it is not against business.  When businesses respect the
+   users' freedom, we wish them success.
+
+   Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software
+   business.  When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way
+   to make a living.  I found it in selling services relating to the free
+   software I had developed.  This included teaching, for subjects such as
+   how to program GNU Emacs and how to customize GCC, and software
+   development, mostly porting GCC to new platforms.
+
+   Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a
+   number of corporations.  Some distribute free software collections on
+   CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user
+   questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features.  We are even
+   beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free
+   software products.
+
+   Watch out, though--a number of companies that associate themselves
+   with the term "open source" actually base their business on non-free
+   software that works with free software.  These are not free software
+   companies, they are proprietary software companies whose products
+   tempt users away from freedom.  They call these "value added", which
+   reflects the values they would like us to adopt: convenience above
+   freedom.  If we value freedom more, we should call them "freedom
+   subtracted" products.
+
+  Technical goals
+
+   The principal goal of GNU was to be free software.  Even if GNU had no
+   technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage,
+   allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the
+   user's freedom.
+
+   But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to
+   the work--for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+   arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+   wherever that made sense.
+
+   In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by
+   deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit
+   machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished),
+   and to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a
+   megabyte.  In programs for which handling very large files was not
+   crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into
+   core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O.
+
+   These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+   counterparts in reliability and speed.
+
+  Donated computers
+
+   As the GNU project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate
+   machines running UNIX to the project.  These were very useful, because
+   the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a UNIX
+   system, and replace the components of that system one by one.  But they
+   raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a copy of
+   UNIX at all.
+
+   UNIX was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU project's
+   philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software.  But,
+   applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence
+   in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to
+   use a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing free
+   replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package.
+
+   But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil.  Today
+   we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them
+   with free operating systems.  If we could not replace a machine's
+   operating system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead.
+
+  The GNU Task List
+
+   As the GNU project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
+   components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to
+   make a list of the remaining gaps.  We used it to recruit developers to
+   write the missing pieces.  This list became known as the GNU task list.
+   In addition to missing Unix components, we listed added various other
+   useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly
+   complete system ought to have.
+
+   Today, hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU task list--those
+   jobs have been done, aside from a few inessential ones.  But the list
+   is full of projects that some might call "applications".  Any program
+   that appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be a useful
+   thing to add to an operating system.
+
+   Even games are included in the task list--and have been since the
+   beginning.  Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too.  But
+   compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the
+   list of games that Unix had.  Instead, we listed a spectrum of
+   different kinds of games that users might like.
+
+  The GNU Library GPL
+
+   The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU
+   Library General Public License, which gives permission to link
+   proprietary software with the library.  Why make this exception?
+
+   It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says
+   proprietary software products are entitled to include our code.  (Why
+   contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?)
+   Using the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of
+   strategy.
+
+   The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler
+   comes with a C library.  Therefore, to make our C library available
+   only to free software would not have given free software any
+   advantage--it would only have discouraged use of our library.
+
+   One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this
+   includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library.  So the
+   distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is
+   possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system.  There is
+   no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU system,
+   but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more to
+   discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of free
+   applications.
+
+   That is why using the Library GPL is a good strategy for the C
+   library.  For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be
+   considered on a case-by-case basis.  When a library does a special job
+   that can help write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under
+   the GPL, limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other
+   free software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary
+   software.
+
+   Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide
+   command-line editing for BASH.  Readline is released under the ordinary
+   GNU GPL, not the Library GPL.  This probably does reduce the amount
+   Readline is used, but that is no loss for us.  Meanwhile, at least one
+   useful application has been made free software specifically so it
+   could use Readline, and that is a real gain for the community.
+
+   Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides;
+   free software developers need to make advantages for each other.  I
+   hope some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries
+   that have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing
+   useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and
+   adding up to a major advantage for further free software development.
+
+  Scratching an itch?
+
+   Eric Raymond says that "Every good work of software starts by
+   scratching a developer's personal itch."  Maybe that happens sometimes,
+   but many essential pieces of GNU software were developed in order to
+   have a complete free operating system.  They come from a vision and a
+   plan, not from impulse.
+
+   For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
+   needs a C library, the Bourne-Again Shell (bash) because a Unix-like
+   system needs a shell, and GNU tar because a Unix-like system needs a
+   tar program.  The same is true for my own programs--the GNU C compiler,
+   GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.
+
+   Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our
+   freedom.  Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program,
+   which had been lost to the community because of the LZW patents.  We
+   found people to develop LessTif, and more recently started GNOME and
+   Harmony, to address the problems caused by certain proprietary
+   libraries (see below).  We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to
+   replace popular non-free encryption software, because users should not
+   have to choose between privacy and freedom.
+
+   Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the
+   work, and many features were added to them by various people for the
+   sake of their own needs and interests.  But that is not why the
+   programs exist.
+
+  Unexpected developments
+
+   At the beginning of the GNU project, I imagined that we would develop
+   the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole.  That is not how it
+   happened.
+
+   Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix
+   system, each component could run on Unix systems, long before a
+   complete GNU system existed.  Some of these programs became popular,
+   and users began extending them and porting them---to the various
+   incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as well.
+
+   The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both
+   funds and contributors to the GNU project.  But it probably also
+   delayed completion of a minimal working system by several years, as
+   GNU developers' time was put into maintaining these ports and adding
+   features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write
+   one missing component after another.
+
+  The GNU Hurd
+
+   By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing
+   component was the kernel.  We had decided to implement our kernel as a
+   collection of server processes running on top of Mach.  Mach is a
+   microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University and then at the
+   University of Utah; the GNU HURD is a collection of servers (or ``herd
+   of gnus'') that run on top of Mach, and do the various jobs of the
+   Unix kernel.  The start of development was delayed as we waited for
+   Mach to be released as free software, as had been promised.
+
+   One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the
+   hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a
+   source-level debugger to do it with.  This part of the job had been
+   done already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the HURD servers as
+   user programs, with GDB.  But it took a long time to make that
+   possible, and the multi-threaded servers that send messages to each
+   other have turned out to be very hard to debug.  Making the HURD work
+   solidly has stretched on for many years.
+
+  Alix
+
+   The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the HURD.  Its
+   original name was Alix--named after the woman who was my sweetheart at
+   the time.  She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her
+   name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a
+   joke, she told her friends, "Someone should name a kernel after me."  I
+   said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
+
+   It did not stay that way.  Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), the main
+   developer of the kernel, preferred the name HURD, and redefined Alix
+   to refer to a certain part of the kernel--the part that would trap
+   system calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers.
+
+   Ultimately, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name;
+   independently, the HURD design was changed so that the C library would
+   send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component
+   disappear from the design.
+
+   But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the
+   name Alix in the HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her.  So
+   the name did its job.
+
+  Linux and GNU/Linux
+
+   The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use.  Fortunately, another
+   kernel is available.  In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a
+   Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux.  Around 1992, combining
+   Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete
+   free operating system.  (Combining them was a substantial job in
+   itself, of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a
+   version of the GNU system today.
+
+   We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
+   combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel.
+
+  Challenges in our future
+
+   We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free
+   software.  This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable.
+   Several challenges make the future of free software uncertain; meeting
+   them will require steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting
+   for years.  It will require the kind of determination that people
+   display when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take it
+   away.
+
+   The following four sections discuss these challenges.
+
+  Secret hardware
+
+   Hardware manufactures increasingly tend to keep hardware
+   specifications secret.  This makes it difficult to write free drivers
+   so that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware.  We have complete
+   free systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot
+   support tomorrow's computers.
+
+   There are two ways to cope with this problem.  Programmers can do
+   reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware.  The
+   rest of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software;
+   as our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a
+   self-defeating policy.
+
+   Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+   sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes--if we have built up a
+   strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and
+   non-free drivers are intolerable.  And will large numbers of us spend
+   extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers?
+   Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.
+
+  Non-free libraries
+
+   A non-free library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
+   for free software developers.  The library's attractive features are
+   the bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
+   program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system.  (Strictly
+   speaking, we could include your program, but it won't run with the
+   library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses the proprietary
+   library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers
+   into the trap.
+
+   The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the
+   80s.  Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was
+   clear what problem Motif would cause for them later on.  The GNU
+   Project responded in two ways: by asking individual free software
+   projects to support the free X toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and
+   by asking for someone to write a free replacement for Motif.  The job
+   took many years; LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became
+   powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997.
+
+   Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called
+   Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop
+   KDE.
+
+   Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not
+   use the library.  However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux
+   systems who were not strict about sticking with free software added
+   KDE to their systems--producing a system with more capabilities, but
+   less freedom.  The KDE group was actively encouraging more programmers
+   to use Qt, and millions of new "Linux users" had never been exposed to
+   the idea that there was a problem in this.  The situation appeared
+   grim.
+
+   The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
+   GNOME and Harmony.
+
+   GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU's desktop
+   project.  Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the
+   support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop
+   facilities, but using free software exclusively.  It has technical
+   advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not
+   just C++.  But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of
+   any non-free software.
+
+   Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+   possible to run KDE software without using Qt.
+
+   In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license
+   which, when carried out, should make Qt free software.  There is no way
+   to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the community's
+   firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was non-free.  (The
+   new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable
+   to avoid using Qt.)
+
+   [Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU
+   GPL, which essentially solved this problem.]
+
+   How will we respond to the next tempting non-free library? Will the
+   whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will
+   many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major
+   problem? Our future depends on our philosophy.
+
+  Software patents
+
+   The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put
+   algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty
+   years.  The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983,
+   and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed
+   GIFs.  In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was
+   removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.
+
+   There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
+   patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job.
+   But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a
+   patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users
+   want.  What will we do when this happens?
+
+   Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with
+   free software anyway.  We will manage to get work done without the
+   patented features.  But those who value free software because they
+   expect it to be techically superior are likely to call it a failure
+   when a patent holds it back.  Thus, while it is useful to talk about
+   the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development,
+   and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop
+   there.  We must talk about freedom and principle.
+
+  Free documentation
+
+   The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+   software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
+   our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
+   package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+   good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.
+
+   Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+   price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
+   free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+   Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
+   and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
+   program.
+
+   Permission for modification is crucial too.  As a general rule, I don't
+   believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify
+   all sorts of articles and books.  For example, I don't think you or I
+   are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which
+   describe our actions and our views.
+
+   But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+   for documentation for free software.  When people exercise their right
+   to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+   conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
+   accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.  A manual
+   which does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the
+   job, does not fill our community's needs.
+
+   Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem.
+   For example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
+   notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok.  It is
+   also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+   they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+   deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+   topics.  These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they
+   don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to
+   fit the modified program.  In other words, they don't block the free
+   software community from making full use of the manual.
+
+   However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
+   the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media,
+   through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+   obstruct the community, the manual is not free, and we need another
+   manual.
+
+   Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+   produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future
+   depends on philosophy.
+
+  We must talk about freedom
+
+   Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+   systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat Linux.  Free software has
+   developed such practical advantages that users are flocking to it for
+   purely practical reasons.
+
+   The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing
+   free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more
+   ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software
+   instead of proprietary software products.
+
+   But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the
+   philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble.  Our ability to
+   meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to
+   stand firm for freedom.  To make sure our community has this will, we
+   need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the
+   community.
+
+   But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our
+   community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of
+   our community.  We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts
+   in balance.
+
+  "Open Source"
+
+   Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+   part of the community decided to stop using the term "free software"
+   and say "open source software" instead.
+
+   Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of "free" with
+   "gratis"--a valid goal.  Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit
+   of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU
+   project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many
+   of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above
+   community, above principle.  Thus, the rhetoric of "open source"
+   focuses on the potential to make high quality, powerful software, but
+   shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle.
+
+   The "Linux" magazines are a clear example of this--they are filled
+   with advertisements for proprietary software that works with
+   GNU/Linux.  When the next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines
+   warn programmers to stay away from it, or will they run ads for it?
+
+   The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways;
+   all else being equal, it is useful.  But winning their support by
+   speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it
+   makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education
+   even worse.
+
+   "Free software" and "open source" describe the same category of
+   software, more or less, but say different things about the software,
+   and about values.  The GNU Project continues to use the term "free
+   software", to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is
+   important.
+
+  Try!
+
+   Yoda's philosophy ("There is no `try'") sounds neat, but it doesn't
+   work for me.  I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I
+   could do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the
+   goal if I did.  But I tried anyway, because there was no one but me
+   between the enemy and my city.  Surprising myself, I have sometimes
+   succeeded.
+
+   Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen.  Then I found
+   another threatened city, and got ready for another battle.  Over time,
+   I've learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my
+   city, calling on other hackers to come and join me.
+
+   Nowadays, often I'm not the only one.  It is a relief and a joy when I
+   see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize,
+   this city may survive--for now.  But the dangers are greater each year,
+   and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community.  We can't take
+   the future of freedom for granted.  Don't take it for granted! If you
+   want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to defend it.