www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/gnu thegnuproject.ar.html thegnuproject.it....


From: GNUN
Subject: www/gnu thegnuproject.ar.html thegnuproject.it....
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 22:29:01 -0400 (EDT)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     20/09/09 22:29:01

Modified files:
        gnu            : thegnuproject.ar.html thegnuproject.it.html 
        gnu/po         : thegnuproject.it-diff.html 
Added files:
        gnu/po         : thegnuproject.ar-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.ar.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.51&r2=1.52
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: thegnuproject.ar.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/thegnuproject.ar.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- thegnuproject.ar.html       4 Jul 2020 09:00:35 -0000       1.4
+++ thegnuproject.ar.html       10 Sep 2020 02:29:00 -0000      1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.ar.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/thegnuproject.ar.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2020-07-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.ar.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ar.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ar.html" -->
 <h2>مشروع جنو</h2>
 
 <p>
@@ -1057,7 +1063,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 تم التحديث في:
 
-$Date: 2020/07/04 09:00:35 $
+$Date: 2020/09/10 02:29:00 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: thegnuproject.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/thegnuproject.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.51
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -b -r1.51 -r1.52
--- thegnuproject.it.html       4 Jul 2020 09:00:35 -0000       1.51
+++ thegnuproject.it.html       10 Sep 2020 02:29:00 -0000      1.52
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2020-07-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
 <h2>Il progetto GNU</h2>
 
 <p>
@@ -1119,7 +1125,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2020/07/04 09:00:35 $
+$Date: 2020/09/10 02:29:00 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html       30 May 2018 00:59:17 -0000      1.1
+++ po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html       10 Sep 2020 02:29:01 -0000      1.2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;About the GNU Project
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
 &lt;meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, 
Free Software Foundation, History" /&gt;
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
 &lt;h3&gt;The first software-sharing community&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 When I started working at the 
-&lt;acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/acronym&gt;
+&lt;abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/abbr&gt;
 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
@@ -48,10 +48,10 @@
 did it more than most.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called
-&lt;acronym title="Incompatible Timesharing System"&gt;ITS&lt;/acronym&gt; (the
+&lt;abbr title="Incompatible Timesharing System"&gt;ITS&lt;/abbr&gt; (the
 Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
 designed and written in assembler language for the Digital
-&lt;acronym title="Programmed Data Processor"&gt;PDP&lt;/acronym&gt;-10, one of
+&lt;abbr title="Programmed Data Processor"&gt;PDP&lt;/abbr&gt;-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.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -315,7 +315,7 @@
 into a chain of &ldquo;instructions&rdquo;, 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 &lt;acronym title="GNU Compiler 
Collection"&gt;GCC&lt;/acronym&gt;;
+compiler is now known as &lt;abbr title="GNU Compiler 
Collection"&gt;GCC&lt;/abbr&gt;;
 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.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@
 I could have said, &ldquo;Find a friend who is on the net and who will make
 a copy for you.&rdquo;  Or I could have done what I did with the original
 PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, &ldquo;Mail me a tape and a
-&lt;acronym title="Self-addressed Stamped Envelope"&gt;SASE&lt;/acronym&gt;, 
and I
+&lt;abbr title="Self-addressed Stamped Envelope"&gt;SASE&lt;/abbr&gt;, and I
 will mail it back with Emacs on it.&rdquo; 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
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@
 funding once again.  So in 1985 we created
 the &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/"&gt;Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt; 
(FSF),
 a tax-exempt charity for free software development.  The
-&lt;acronym title="Free Software Foundation"&gt;FSF&lt;/acronym&gt; also took 
over
+&lt;abbr title="Free Software Foundation"&gt;FSF&lt;/abbr&gt; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -468,7 +468,7 @@
 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
-&lt;acronym title="Bourne Again Shell"&gt;BASH&lt;/acronym&gt;, the Bourne 
Again
+&lt;abbr title="Bourne Again Shell"&gt;BASH&lt;/abbr&gt;, the Bourne Again
 Shell(1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was
@@ -652,9 +652,9 @@
 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 &lt;acronym title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch"&gt;LZW&lt;/acronym&gt; patents.  We 
found
+the &lt;abbr title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch"&gt;LZW&lt;/abbr&gt; patents.  We found
 people to develop LessTif, and more recently started
-&lt;acronym title="GNU Network Object Model 
Environment"&gt;GNOME&lt;/acronym&gt;
+&lt;abbr title="GNU Network Object Model Environment"&gt;GNOME&lt;/abbr&gt;
 and Harmony, to address the problems caused by certain proprietary
 libraries (see below).  We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to
 replace popular nonfree encryption software, because users should not
@@ -811,10 +811,10 @@
 powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree 
-&lt;acronym title="Graphical User Interface"&gt;GUI&lt;/acronym&gt; toolkit
+&lt;abbr title="Graphical User Interface"&gt;GUI&lt;/abbr&gt; toolkit
 library, called Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free
 software, the desktop
-&lt;acronym title="K Desktop Environment"&gt;KDE&lt;/acronym&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;abbr title="K Desktop Environment"&gt;KDE&lt;/abbr&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not
 use the library.  However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux
@@ -860,19 +860,20 @@
 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 &lt;acronym title="Graphics Interchange 
Format"&gt;GIF&lt;/acronym&gt;s.
+compressed &lt;abbr title="Graphics Interchange Format"&gt;GIF&lt;/abbr&gt;s.
 [As of 2009 they have expired.]  In 1998, a free program to produce
-&lt;acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3"&gt;MP3&lt;/acronym&gt; compressed 
audio
-was removed from distribution under threat of a patent <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>suit.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>suit.  [As of
+&lt;abbr title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3"&gt;MP3&lt;/abbr&gt; compressed audio
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.  [As of
 2017, these patents have expired.  Look how long we had to wait.]
-&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 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.  After a long wait, the patents expire (the MP3 patents are
-expected to have expired by 2018), but what will we do until then?&lt;/p&gt;
+want.  After a long wait, the patents <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>expire (the MP3 patents are
+expected to have expired by 2018),</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>expire,</em></ins></span> but what will we do
+until then?&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 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
@@ -1061,7 +1062,7 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020
 Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
@@ -1072,11 +1073,11 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
+$Date: 2020/09/10 02:29:01 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
-&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
 &lt;/body&gt;
 &lt;/html&gt;
 </pre></body></html>

Index: po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html
diff -N po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/thegnuproject.ar-diff.html       10 Sep 2020 02:29:01 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1083 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/thegnuproject.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;About the GNU Project
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, 
Free Software Foundation, History" /&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;The GNU Project&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Richard 
Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Originally published in the book &lt;em&gt;Open Sources&lt;/em&gt;.  Richard
+Stallman was &lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;
+never a supporter of &ldquo;open source&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;, but contributed
+this article so that the ideas of the free software movement would not
+be entirely absent from that book.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Why it is even more important than ever
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"&gt;to insist
+that the software we use be free&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The first software-sharing community&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When I started working at the 
+&lt;abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/abbr&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called
+&lt;abbr title="Incompatible Timesharing System"&gt;ITS&lt;/abbr&gt; (the
+Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
+designed and written in assembler language for the Digital
+&lt;abbr title="Programmed Data Processor"&gt;PDP&lt;/abbr&gt;-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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We did not call our software &ldquo;free software&rdquo;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(1) The use of &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; to mean &ldquo;security
+breaker&rdquo; 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, someone who enjoys playful
+cleverness, or the combination of the two.  See my
+article, &lt;a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"&gt;On
+Hacking&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The collapse of the community&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 nonfree timesharing system
+instead of ITS.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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, &ldquo;If you
+share with your neighbor, you are a pirate.  If you want any changes,
+beg us to make them.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The idea that the proprietary software social system&mdash;the system
+that says you are not allowed to share or change software&mdash;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 the proprietary software
+social system as a 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When software publishers talk about &ldquo;enforcing&rdquo; their
+&ldquo;rights&rdquo; or &ldquo;stopping &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"&gt;piracy&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;, what 
they
+actually &lt;em&gt;say&lt;/em&gt; is secondary.  The real message of these 
statements is
+in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the public is
+asked to accept without examination.  Let's therefore examine them.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+software is what jobs it allows you to do&mdash;that we computer users
+should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues
+based on ordinary commonsense 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning
+behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web pages
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/why-free.html"&gt;
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html&lt;/a&gt; and
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"&gt;
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;A stark moral choice&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible.
+Instead, I faced a stark moral choice.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix.&rdquo; It is pronounced
+as &lt;a href="/gnu/pronunciation.html"&gt;one syllable with a hard 
g&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1):&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+     If I am not for myself, who will be for me?&lt;br /&gt;
+     If I am only for myself, what am I?&lt;br /&gt;
+     If not now, when?
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
+sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free as in freedom&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is sometimes misunderstood&mdash;it
+has nothing to do with price.  It is about freedom.  Here, therefore,
+is the definition of free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any 
purpose.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;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.)&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis
+     or for a fee.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the 
program,
+     so that the community can benefit from your improvements.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Since &ldquo;free&rdquo; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Because of the ambiguity of &ldquo;free&rdquo;, people have long
+looked for alternatives, but no one has found a better term.
+The English language has more words and nuances than any other, but it
+lacks a simple, unambiguous, word that means &ldquo;free&rdquo;, as in
+freedom&mdash;&ldquo;unfettered&rdquo; being the word that comes closest in
+meaning.  Such alternatives as &ldquo;liberated&rdquo;,
+&ldquo;freedom&rdquo;, and &ldquo;open&rdquo; have either the wrong
+meaning or some other disadvantage.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;GNU software and the GNU system&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Because of these decisions, and others like them,
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Commencing the project&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+invited me to keep using the lab's facilities.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The first steps&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free
+University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK.  (The Dutch word for
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; is written with a &lt;em&gt;v&lt;/em&gt;.)  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 multilanguage, multiplatform compiler.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I
+obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a
+multiplatform 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;instructions&rdquo;, 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 &lt;abbr title="GNU Compiler 
Collection"&gt;GCC&lt;/abbr&gt;;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;GNU Emacs&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I could have said, &ldquo;Find a friend who is on the net and who will make
+a copy for you.&rdquo;  Or I could have done what I did with the original
+PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, &ldquo;Mail me a tape and a
+&lt;abbr title="Self-addressed Stamped Envelope"&gt;SASE&lt;/abbr&gt;, and I
+will mail it back with Emacs on it.&rdquo; 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 GNU/Linux
+system distributions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Is a program free for every user?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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,
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware"&gt; public domain
+software&lt;/a&gt; (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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+problem&mdash;they expected and intended this to happen.  Their goal was
+not freedom, just &ldquo;success&rdquo;, defined as &ldquo;having many
+users.&rdquo; They did not care whether these users had freedom, only
+that they should be numerous.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
+counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
+&ldquo;Is this program free?&rdquo; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Copyleft and the GNU GPL&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.(1)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
+of its usual purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it
+becomes a means for keeping the program free.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;but not permission to add restrictions of their
+own.  Thus, the crucial freedoms that define &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become
+inalienable rights.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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, &ldquo;You can't share those changes, because
+we are going to use them to make our proprietary version of the
+program.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code.
+Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms
+are lacking for the nonfree 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(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: &ldquo;Copyleft&mdash;all rights reversed.&rdquo; I
+used the word &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo; to name the distribution concept
+I was developing at the time.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+(2) We now use the &lt;a href="/licenses/fdl.html"&gt;GNU Free
+Documentation License&lt;/a&gt; for documentation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The Free Software Foundation&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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 &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/"&gt;Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt; 
(FSF),
+a tax-exempt charity for free software development.  The
+&lt;abbr title="Free Software Foundation"&gt;FSF&lt;/abbr&gt; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Most of the FSF's income used to come from sales of copies of free
+software and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code,
+CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to
+redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (distributions for
+which we built the whole collection of software for the customer's
+choice of platform).  Today the FSF
+still &lt;a href="http://shop.fsf.org/"&gt; sells manuals and other
+gear&lt;/a&gt;, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members' dues.  You
+can join the FSF at &lt;a 
href="http://fsf.org/join"&gt;fsf.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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
+&lt;abbr title="Bourne Again Shell"&gt;BASH&lt;/abbr&gt;, the Bourne Again
+Shell(1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(1) &ldquo;Bourne Again Shell&rdquo; is a play on the name
+&ldquo;Bourne Shell&rdquo;, which was the usual shell on Unix.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free software support&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Watch out, though&mdash;a number of companies that associate 
themselves
+with the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; actually base their business
+on nonfree 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 programs
+&ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;, which shows the values they
+would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom.  If we value freedom
+more, we should call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted&rdquo; packages.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Technical goals&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The principal goal of GNU is 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to
+the work&mdash;for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+wherever that made sense.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+counterparts in reliability and speed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Donated computers&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Task List&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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 various
+other useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a
+truly complete system ought to have.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Today (1), hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task
+List&mdash;those jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential
+ones.  But the list is full of projects that some might call
+&ldquo;applications&rdquo;.  Any program that appeals to more than a
+narrow class of users would be a useful thing to add to an operating
+system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Even games are included in the task list&mdash;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(1) That was written in 1998.  In 2009 we no longer maintain a long
+task list.  The community develops free software so fast that we can't
+even keep track of it all.  Instead, we have a list of High Priority
+Projects, a much shorter list of projects we really want to encourage
+people to write.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Library GPL&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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&mdash;it would only have discouraged use of our library.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(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 &lt;a href="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html"&gt;Why you shouldn't use the
+Lesser GPL for your next library&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Scratching an itch?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Eric Raymond says that &ldquo;Every good work of software starts by
+scratching a developer's personal itch.&rdquo;  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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
+needs a C library, 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&mdash;the GNU C
+compiler, GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &lt;abbr title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch"&gt;LZW&lt;/abbr&gt; patents.  We found
+people to develop LessTif, and more recently started
+&lt;abbr title="GNU Network Object Model Environment"&gt;GNOME&lt;/abbr&gt;
+and Harmony, to address the problems caused by certain proprietary
+libraries (see below).  We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to
+replace popular nonfree encryption software, because users should not
+have to choose between privacy and freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Unexpected developments&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;to the various
+incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as 
well.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Hurd&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 (i.e., a
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 multithreaded 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Alix&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd.  Its
+original name was Alix&mdash;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, &ldquo;Someone should name a kernel after
+me.&rdquo; I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel
+named Alix.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It did not stay that way.  Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main
+developer of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix
+to refer to a certain part of the kernel&mdash;the part that would trap
+system calls and handle them by sending messages to Hurd servers.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Later, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the
+name Alix in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her.  So
+she did have the chance to find a kernel named after her.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Linux and GNU/Linux&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU Hurd is not suitable for production use, and we don't know
+if it ever will be.  The capability-based design has problems that
+result directly from the flexibility of the design, and it is not
+clear whether solutions exist.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Fortunately, another kernel is available.  In 1991, Linus Torvalds
+developed a Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux.  It was
+proprietary at first, but in 1992, he made it free software; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We call this system version &lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;
+GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt;, to express its composition as a combination of the GNU
+system with Linux as the kernel.  Please don't fall into the practice
+of calling the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, since that means
+attributing our work to someone else.
+Please &lt;a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"&gt; give us equal
+mention&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Challenges in our future&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The following four sections discuss these challenges.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Secret hardware&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+sufficient determination to undertake it?  Yes&mdash;if we have built up a
+strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and
+nonfree 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well.  There is a free
+BIOS, &lt;a href="http://www.libreboot.org/"&gt;LibreBoot&lt;/a&gt; (a 
distribution of coreboot); the problem is getting specs for machines so that
+LibreBoot can support them without nonfree &ldquo;blobs&rdquo;.)&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Nonfree libraries&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+A nonfree 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 &lt;em&gt;run&lt;/em&gt; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree 
+&lt;abbr title="Graphical User Interface"&gt;GUI&lt;/abbr&gt; toolkit
+library, called Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free
+software, the desktop
+&lt;abbr title="K Desktop Environment"&gt;KDE&lt;/abbr&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;producing a system with more capabilities,
+but less freedom.  The KDE group was actively encouraging more
+programmers to use Qt, and millions of new &ldquo;Linux users&rdquo;
+had never been exposed to the idea that there was a problem in this.
+The situation appeared grim.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
+GNOME and Harmony.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 nonfree software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+possible to run KDE software without using Qt.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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
+nonfree.  (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it
+remains desirable to avoid using Qt.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU GPL,
+which essentially solved this problem.]&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Software patents&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &lt;abbr title="Graphics Interchange Format"&gt;GIF&lt;/abbr&gt;s.
+[As of 2009 they have expired.]  In 1998, a free program to produce
+&lt;abbr title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3"&gt;MP3&lt;/abbr&gt; compressed audio
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.  [As of
+2017, these patents have expired.  Look how long we had to wait.]
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.  After a long wait, the patents <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>expire (the MP3 patents are
+expected to have expired by 2018),</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>expire,</em></ins></span> but what will we do
+until then?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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 &ldquo;bazaar&rdquo; model of
+development, and the reliability and power of some free software,
+we must not stop there.  We must talk about freedom and principle.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free documentation&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+software&mdash;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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, online
+and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
+program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;so they can
+provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.
+A nonfree manual, which does not allow programmers to be conscientious
+and finish the job, does not fill our community's needs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, it must be possible to modify all the &lt;em&gt;technical&lt;/em&gt; 
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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+produce a full spectrum of free manuals?  Once again, our future
+depends on philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;We must talk about freedom&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
+Free software has developed such practical advantages that users are
+flocking to it for purely practical reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;&ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+part of the community decided to stop using the term &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; and say &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;
+instead.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; with &ldquo;gratis&rdquo;&mdash;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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; focuses on the potential to
+make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom,
+community, and principle.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; magazines are a clear example of this&mdash;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?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;free software&rdquo;, to express the idea that
+freedom, not just technology, is important.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Try!&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Yoda's aphorism (&ldquo;There is no &lsquo;try&rsquo;&rdquo;) 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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+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&mdash;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.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020
+Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2020/09/10 02:29:01 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]