diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT')
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT | 905 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 900 deletions
diff --git a/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT index f3d554e45bf..ece9aa6d888 100644 --- a/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT +++ b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT @@ -1,903 +1,8 @@ - The GNU Project +The GNU Project - by Richard Stallman +Note added March 2014: - originally published in the book "Open Sources" +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use - 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-software 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 led 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.(2) - - (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. - - (2) We now use the GNU Free Documentation License for documentation. - - 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 a 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(1), 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. - - (1) This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License, - to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it. - See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html. - - 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 manufacturers 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 technically 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 (1), - and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop - there. We must talk about freedom and principle. - - (1) It would have been clearer to write `of the "bazaar" model', since - that was the alternative that was new and initially controversial. - - 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. - - Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Stallman - - Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted - in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. +<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html> |