Copyright (C) 1985, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copiesof this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice andpermission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants therecipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by thisnotice. Modified versions may not be made.The GNU Manifesto***************** The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard Stallman at the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for participation and support. For the first few years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it. Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added in 1993 help clarify these points. For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please see www.gnu.org. For software tasks to work on, see http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist. For other ways to contribute, see http://www.gnu.org/help.What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!============================ GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the completeUnix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give itaway free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers arehelping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment aregreatly needed. So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editorcommands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator,a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) isnearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compileditself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists butmany more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel andcompiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU systemsuitable for program development. We will use TeX as our textformatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free,portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portableCommon Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of otherthings, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more. GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical toUnix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on ourexperience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan tohave longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, andperhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which severalLisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both Cand Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We willtry to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols forcommunication. GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class withvirtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it runon. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be leftto someone who wants to use it on them. To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word`GNU' when it is the name of this project.Why I Must Write GNU==================== I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program Imust share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want todivide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to sharewith others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in thisway. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or asoftware license agreement. For years I worked within the ArtificialIntelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities,but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in aninstitution where such things are done for me against my will. So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I havedecided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that Iwill be able to get along without any software that is not free. Ihave resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to preventme from giving GNU away.Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix==================================== Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essentialfeatures of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in whatUnix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unixwould be convenient for many other people to adopt.How GNU Will Be Available========================= GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted tomodify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed torestrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietarymodifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that allversions of GNU remain free.Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help======================================= I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU andwant to help. Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of systemsoftware. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires themto feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feelas comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is thesharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically usedessentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. Thepurchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying thelaw. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. Butthose who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice.They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of makingmoney. By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we canbe hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves asan example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us insharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible ifwe use software that is not free. For about half the programmers Italk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.How You Can Contribute====================== I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines andmoney. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work. One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNUwill run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete,ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and notin need of sophisticated cooling or power. I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-timework for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work wouldbe very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would notwork together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, thisproblem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utilityprograms, each of which is documented separately. Most interfacespecifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributorcan write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and makeit work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then theseutilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphyto create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components willbe a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication andwill be worked on by a small, tight group.) If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people fullor part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, butI'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is asimportant as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicatedpeople to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing themthe need to make a living in another way.Why All Computer Users Will Benefit=================================== Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good systemsoftware free, just like air.(2) This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unixlicense. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programmingeffort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing thestate of the art. Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result,a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make themhimself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them forhim. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or companywhich owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environmentby encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could beinstalled on the system if its sources were not on public display, andupheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was verymuch inspired by this. Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system softwareand what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, includinglicensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society throughthe cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state canforce everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air mustbe manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of airmay be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night isintolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And theTV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off areoutrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax andchuck the masks. Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer asbreathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals============================================== "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't rely on any support." "You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support." If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU freewithout service, a company to provide just service to people who haveobtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(3) We must distinguish between support in the form of real programmingwork and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely onfrom a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enoughpeople, the vendor will tell you to get lost. If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only wayis to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire anyavailable person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of anyindividual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out ofconsideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It isstill possible for there to be no available competent person, but thisproblem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does noteliminate all the world's problems, only some of them. Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers needhandholding: doing things for them which they could easily dothemselves but don't know how. Such services could be provided by companies that sell justhand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would ratherspend money and get a product with service, they will also be willingto buy the service having got the product free. The service companieswill compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to anyparticular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the serviceshould be able to use the program without paying for the service. "You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must charge for the program to support that." "It's no use advertising a program people can get free." There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can beused to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. Butit may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users withadvertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises theservice of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successfulenough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the userswho benefit from the advertising pay for it. On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, andsuch companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was notreally necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocatesdon't want to let the free market decide this?(4) "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitive edge." GNU will remove operating system software from the realm ofcompetition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, butneither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You andthey will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in thisone. If your business is selling an operating system, you will notlike GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else,GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business ofselling operating systems. I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from manymanufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(5) "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution.Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as societyis free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded forcreating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to bepunished if they restrict the use of these programs. "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?" There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking tomaximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that aredestructive. But the means customary in the field of software todayare based on destruction. Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use ofit is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and theways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealththat humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberatechoice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means tobecome wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all becomepoorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or,the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result ifeveryone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for oneto do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativitydoes not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of thatcreativity. "Won't programmers starve?" I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of uscannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and makingfaces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our livesstanding on the street making faces, and starving. We do somethingelse. But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner'simplicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmerscannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still bepossible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much asnow. Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If itwere prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business wouldmove to other bases of organization which are now used less often.There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business. Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as itis now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is notconsidered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that theynow do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injusticeeither. (In practice they would still make considerably more thanthat.) "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?" "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control overother people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives moredifficult. People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(6)carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right tointellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual propertyrights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts oflegislation for specific purposes. For example, the patent system was established to encourageinventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose wasto help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the lifespan of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate ofadvance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only amongmanufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement aresmall compared with setting up production, the patents often do not domuch harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patentedproducts. The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authorsfrequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. Thispractice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works havesurvived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly forthe purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it wasinvented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printingpress--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individualswho read the books. All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by societybecause it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a wholewould benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, wehave to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kindof act are we licensing a person to do? The case of programs today is very different from that of books ahundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program isfrom one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both sourcecode and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program isused rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation inwhich a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a wholeboth materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do soregardless of whether the law enables him to. "Competition makes things get done better." The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, weencourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works thisway, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming italways works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offeredand become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find otherstrategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get intoa fist fight, they will all finish late. Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runnersin a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seemto object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards yourun, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, andpenalize runners for even trying to fight. "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?" Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetaryincentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for somepeople, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage ofprofessional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope ofmaking a living that way. But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriateto the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only becomeless. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reducedmonetary incentive? My experience shows that they will. For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers workedat the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they couldhave had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards:fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, areward in itself. Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the sameinteresting work for a lot of money. What the facts show is that people will program for reasons otherthan riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, theywill come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorlyin competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badlyif the high-paying ones are banned. "We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey." You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute! "Programmers need to make a living somehow." In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of waysthat programmers could make a living without selling the right to use aprogram. This way is customary now because it brings programmers andbusinessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make aliving. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Hereare a number of examples. A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting ofoperating systems onto the new hardware. The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services couldalso employ programmers. People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware(7), askingfor donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services.I have met people who are already working this way successfully. Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. Agroup would contract with programming companies to write programs thatthe group's members would like to use. All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development. But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay. The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on. The consequences: * The computer-using community supports software development. * This community decides what level of support is needed. * Users who care which projects their share is spent on can choose this for themselves. In the long run, making programs free is a step toward thepost-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just tomake a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activitiesthat are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary tenhours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling,robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to beable to make a living from programming. We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the wholesociety must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of thishas translated itself into leisure for workers because muchnonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles againstcompetition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in thearea of software production. We must do this, in order for technicalgains in productivity to translate into less work for us. ---------- Footnotes ---------- (1) The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobodywould have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But thewords don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as sayingthat copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge.That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions thepossibility of companies providing the service of distribution for aprofit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between"free" in the sense of freedom and "free" in the sense of price. Freesoftware is software that users have the freedom to distribute andchange. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay toobtain copies--and if the funds help support improving the software, somuch the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copyhas the freedom to cooperate with others in using it. (2) This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully betweenthe two different meanings of "free". The statement as it stands isnot false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from yourfriends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea. (3) Several such companies now exist. (4) The Free Software Foundation raised most of its funds for 10years from a distribution service, although it is a charity ratherthan a company. (5) A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 tosupport maintenance of the GNU C Compiler. (6) In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speakof "the issue" of "intellectual property". That term is obviouslybiased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together variousdisparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I urgepeople to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest itlead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to beclear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately.See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanationof how this term spreads confusion and bias. (7) Subsequently we have learned to distinguish between "freesoftware" and "freeware". The term "freeware" means software you arefree to redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and changethe source code, so most of it is not free software. Seehttp://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for moreexplanation.