[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT,v
|
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
|
Subject: |
[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT,v |
|
Date: |
Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:20:22 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /cvsroot/emacs
Module name: emacs
Changes by: Richard M. Stallman <rms> 06/09/15 14:20:22
Index: THE-GNU-PROJECT
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- THE-GNU-PROJECT 27 Jan 2002 21:34:12 -0000 1.3
+++ THE-GNU-PROJECT 15 Sep 2006 14:20:22 -0000 1.4
@@ -7,24 +7,23 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -44,9 +43,8 @@
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.
+ 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
@@ -54,19 +52,19 @@
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."
+ 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
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -78,30 +76,30 @@
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.
+ 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
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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>.
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
A stark moral choice.
@@ -110,28 +108,27 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -153,8 +150,8 @@
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,
+ 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.
@@ -176,31 +173,30 @@
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 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.
+ 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
+ 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
@@ -209,8 +205,8 @@
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.
+ 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
@@ -222,12 +218,12 @@
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.
+ 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.
@@ -235,23 +231,23 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -274,18 +270,18 @@
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.
+ 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?
@@ -315,9 +311,9 @@
"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.
+ 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
@@ -326,15 +322,15 @@
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
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -347,15 +343,15 @@
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.
+ 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
+ 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.
@@ -364,7 +360,7 @@
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.
+ 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,
@@ -372,35 +368,36 @@
"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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
@@ -412,8 +409,8 @@
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
+ 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.
@@ -425,14 +422,14 @@
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
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -441,8 +438,8 @@
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
+ 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.
@@ -469,8 +466,8 @@
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
+ 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
@@ -481,41 +478,41 @@
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
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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
+ 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
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -526,27 +523,31 @@
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
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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?
@@ -563,18 +564,18 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ sake of their own needs and interests. But that is not why the programs
+ exist.
Unexpected developments
@@ -584,16 +585,16 @@
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
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -602,18 +603,18 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -625,18 +626,18 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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
@@ -644,9 +645,9 @@
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.
+ 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.
@@ -654,27 +655,26 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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
+ 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
@@ -687,8 +687,8 @@
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
+ 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
@@ -696,37 +696,35 @@
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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ 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.
@@ -735,8 +733,8 @@
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.)
+ 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.]
@@ -765,11 +763,14 @@
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,
+ 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
@@ -799,26 +800,25 @@
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
+ 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
+ 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.
+ 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.
+ produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends
+ on philosophy.
We must talk about freedom
@@ -855,20 +855,20 @@
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?
+ 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.
+ 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,
@@ -885,10 +885,10 @@
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.
+ 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,
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT,v,
Richard M. Stallman <=