[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g...
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun server/gnun/ChangeLog server/g... |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:18:04 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /cvsroot/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/02/21 20:18:04
Modified files:
gnun/server/gnun: ChangeLog gnun.mk gnun.texi
Added files:
gnun/philosophy: why-free.html
Log message:
* gnun.mk (philosophy): Add `why-free'.
* gnun.texi: Set @afourpaper.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/why-free.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&rev=1.1
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.texi?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Patches:
Index: server/gnun/ChangeLog
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- server/gnun/ChangeLog 20 Feb 2008 09:15:37 -0000 1.2
+++ server/gnun/ChangeLog 21 Feb 2008 20:18:04 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2008-02-21 Yavor Doganov <address@hidden>
+
+ * gnun.texi: Set @afourpaper.
+
2008-02-20 Yavor Doganov <address@hidden>
* gnun.texi (Advantages): Clarify the usefulness of `urgent'
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 20 Feb 2008 09:11:08 -0000 1.1
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 21 Feb 2008 20:18:04 -0000 1.2
@@ -39,7 +39,8 @@
right-to-read \
schools \
software-literary-patents \
- sun-in-night-time
+ sun-in-night-time \
+ why-free
ALL_DIRS := gnu \
philosophy
Index: server/gnun/gnun.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/server/gnun/gnun.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- server/gnun/gnun.texi 20 Feb 2008 09:15:38 -0000 1.2
+++ server/gnun/gnun.texi 21 Feb 2008 20:18:04 -0000 1.3
@@ -4,7 +4,8 @@
@settitle GNUnited Nations Manual
@c FIXME: Would be nice to have it in the format `%:b %:d, %:y', but
@c in English.
address@hidden lastupdate 20.02.2008
address@hidden lastupdate 21.02.2008
address@hidden
@c %**end of header
@c Please do not use features of Texinfo >> 4.8, which is the version
Index: philosophy/why-free.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/why-free.html
diff -N philosophy/why-free.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/why-free.html 21 Feb 2008 20:18:03 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,427 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners - GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation (FSF)</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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):</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
+to help your friend.</li>
+
+ <li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+ <li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
+told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+ <li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request)
+of people such as <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of
+Technology">MIT</abbr>'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.</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary 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.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+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.)</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.</p>
+
+<p>
+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
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has an
+owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you can do with
+it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Free Software Foundation (FSF)</a>, a
+tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by
+<a href="http://order.fsf.org/">selling</a>
+GNU
+<a href="/software/software.html">CD-ROMs</a>,
+<a href="http://order.fsf.org/">T-shirts</a>,
+<a href="/doc/doc.html">manuals</a>, and
+<a href="http://order.fsf.org/">deluxe distributions</a>,
+(all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
+<a href="http://donate.fsf.org/">donations</a>. It now has a staff of five
+programmers, plus three employees who handle mail orders.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees [when this article was
+written], estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is
+free software development---a respectable percentage for a software
+company.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+[Air Force funding ended some time ago; the GNU Ada Compiler
+is now in service, and its maintenance is funded commercially.]</p>
+
+<p>
+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 [the US] shows it's possible to support a large
+activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published in <a href="/doc/book13.html"><cite>Free Software,
+Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
+
+</div>
+
+<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 1994 Richard Stallman
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
+preserved.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2008/02/21 20:18:03 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<div id="translations">
+<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
+
+<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical. -->
+<!-- Comment what the language is for each type, i.e. de is Deutsch.-->
+<!-- If you add a new language here, please -->
+<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+<!-- - /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+<!-- - /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+<!-- - one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+<!-- <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm> -->
+<!-- Please use W3C normative character entities -->
+
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- Catalan -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li>
+<!-- Czech -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.cs.html">Česky</a> [cs]</li>
+<!-- Danish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.da.html">Dansk</a> [da]</li>
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- Spanish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
+<!-- Persian/Farsi -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.fa.html">فارسی</a> [fa]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Croatian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.hr.html">Hrvatski</a> [hr]</li>
+<!-- Hungarian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.hu.html">Magyar</a> [hu]</li>
+<!-- Indonesian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a> [id]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Japanese -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
+<!-- Korean -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.ko.html">한국어</a> [ko]</li>
+<!-- Dutch -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
+<!-- Polish -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.pl.html">Polski</a> [pl]</li>
+<!-- Portuguese -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/why-free.pt.html">Português</a> [pt]</li>
+<!-- Russian -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.ru.html">Русский</a> [ru]</li>
+<!-- Tamil -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.ta.html">தமிழ்</a> [ta]</li>
+<!-- Turkish -->
+<li><a
href="/philosophy/why-free.tr.html">Türkçe</a> [tr]</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>