diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'etc/WHY-FREE')
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/WHY-FREE | 246 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 241 deletions
diff --git a/etc/WHY-FREE b/etc/WHY-FREE index 0678d99ddb7..a70232d84a6 100644 --- a/etc/WHY-FREE +++ b/etc/WHY-FREE @@ -1,244 +1,8 @@ - Why Software Should Not Have Owners +Why Software Should Not Have Owners - by Richard Stallman +Note added March 2014: -Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it -easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this -easier for all of us. +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use -Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives -software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's -potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be -the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use. - -The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass -production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology -because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not -take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did -not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and -few readers were sued for that. - -Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when -information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with -others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like -copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian -measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four -practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA): - -* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners -to help your friend. - -* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and -colleagues. - -* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are -told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying. - -* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people -such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not -accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities -unguarded and failing to censor their use. - -All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, -where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, -and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it -from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the -motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in -the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, -not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no -matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness. - -Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power -to control how we use information: - -* Name calling. - -Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert -terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a -certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between -programs and physical objects. - -Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about -whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They -don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners -ask us to apply them anyway. - -* Exaggeration. - -Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy -programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the -owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who -made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner. - -A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought -copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every -one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly. - -* The law. - -Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh -penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the -suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of -morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties -as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone. - -This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical -thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway. - -It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American -should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many -states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only -racists would say sitting there was wrong. - -* Natural rights. - -Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have -written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and -interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone -else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically -companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are -expected to ignore this discrepancy.) - -To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more -important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author -myself, call it bunk. - -But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the -natural rights claims for two reasons. - -One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I -cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from -eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material -interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest -distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance. - -But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly -and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend -affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't -have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should. - -The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights -for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society. - -As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural -rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US -Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits* -a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says -that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of -copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright -does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is -intended as a means of modifying their behavior. - -The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts -into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be -justified for the public's sake. - -* Economics. - -The final argument made for having owners of software is that this -leads to production of more software. - -Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach -to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of -software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of -something if they are well paid for doing so. - -But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption -that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. -It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the -software has owners or not. - -People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our -experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. -You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or -for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. -Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, -the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it -once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot -directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards. - -This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an -owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with -it if you acquire it. - -But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and -what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not -just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages -software owners to produce something--but not what society really -needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us -all. - -What does society need? It needs information that is truly available -to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix, -adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners -typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change. - -Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users -lose freedom to control part of their own lives. - -And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary -cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that -helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our -society's civic spirit. - -This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not -price. - -The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue -is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of -writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software -than those people write, we need to raise funds. - -For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods -of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone -rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough -incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming. - -For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living -from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each -enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus -eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so -that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the -features I would otherwise have considered highest priority. - -The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software -development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all -of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from -donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three -employees who handle mail orders. - -Some free software developers make money by selling support services. -Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per -cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable -percentage for a software company. - -Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog -Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free -GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the -Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this -is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler. - -All these examples are small; the free software movement is still -small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio -in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity -without forcing each user to pay. - -As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary -program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to -refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But -underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A -person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and -this means saying "No" to proprietary software. - -You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other -people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the -software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be -able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. - -You deserve free software. - - -Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman -Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted -without royalty as long as this notice is preserved; -alteration is not permitted. +<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html> |