@c This is part of the Emacs manual.@c Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2004,@c 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.@ifclear justgnu@node Manifesto,, Microsoft Windows, Top@unnumbered The GNU Manifesto@end ifclear@ifset justgnuCopyright @copyright{} 1985, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this documentunder the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 orany later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with noInvariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNUManual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of thelicense is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free DocumentationLicense'' in the Emacs manual.(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modifythis GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the FreeSoftware Foundation raise funds for GNU development.''This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU FreeDocumentation License. If you want to distribute this documentseparately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of thelicense to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.@node Top@top The GNU Manifesto@end ifset@quotationThe GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard Stallman atthe beginning of the GNU project, to ask for participation and support.For the first few years, it was updated in minor ways to account fordevelopments, but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most peoplehave seen it.Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandingsthat different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added in 1993 helpclarify these points.For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, pleasesee @uref{http://www.gnu.org}. For software tasks to work on, see@uref{http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist}. For other ways tocontribute, see @uref{http://www.gnu.org/help}.@end quotation@unnumberedsec 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.@footnote{The wording here wascareless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for@emph{permission} to use the GNU system. But the words don't make thisclear, and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNUshould always be distributed at little or no charge. That was never theintent; later on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of companiesproviding the service of distribution for a profit. Subsequently I havelearned to distinguish carefully between ``free'' in the sense offreedom and ``free'' in the sense of price. Free software is softwarethat users have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users mayobtain copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain copies---and ifthe funds help support improving the software, so much the better. Theimportant thing is that everyone who has a copy has the freedom tocooperate with others in using it.} Several other volunteers are helpingme. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatlyneeded.So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands,a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, andaround 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. Anew portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be releasedthis year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed toemulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will bepossible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. Wewill use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. Wewill use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we willadd a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds ofother things, 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 to Unix.We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experiencewith other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longerfile names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file namecompletion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhapseventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programsand ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will beavailable as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP,MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtualmemory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extraeffort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wantsto use it on them.To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU'when it is the name of this project.@unnumberedsec Why I Must Write GNUI consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I mustshare it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to dividethe users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share withothers. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. Icannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a softwarelicense agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial IntelligenceLab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventuallythey had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where suchthings are done for me against my will.So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided toput together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able toget along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from theAI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.@unnumberedsec Why GNU Will Be Compatible with UnixUnix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential featuresof Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lackswithout spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would beconvenient for many other people to adopt.@unnumberedsec How GNU Will Be AvailableGNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify andredistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict itsfurther redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will notbe allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.@unnumberedsec Why Many Other Programmers Want to HelpI have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want tohelp.Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of systemsoftware. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them tofeel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel ascomrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is thesharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentiallyforbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of softwaremust choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decidethat friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often donot feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think thatprogramming is just a way of making money.By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can behospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as anexample to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we usesoftware that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, thisis an important happiness that money cannot replace.@unnumberedsec How You Can ContributeI am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money.I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will runon them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to usesystems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need ofsophisticated cooling or power.I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work forGNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hardto coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together.But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Acomplete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of whichis documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unixcompatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement fora single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the originalon a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together.Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assemblingthese components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closercommunication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full orpart time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'mlooking for people for whom building community spirit is as important asmaking money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devotetheir full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make aliving in another way.@unnumberedsec Why All Computer Users Will BenefitOnce GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good systemsoftware free, just like air.@footnote{This is another place I failed todistinguish carefully between the two different meanings of ``free.''The statement as it stands is not false---you can get copies of GNUsoftware at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it doessuggest the wrong idea.}This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license.It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort willbe avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of theart.Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a userwho needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself,or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Userswill no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns thesources and is in sole position to make changes.Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment byencouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard'scomputer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed onthe system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it byactually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired bythis.Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and whatone is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing ofcopies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersomemechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) aperson must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obeythem. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at greatcost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing themetered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone canafford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if youever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the airplant with a head tax and chuck 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.@unnumberedsec Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals@quotation``Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't relyon any support.''``You have to charge for the program to pay for providing thesupport.''@end quotationIf people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free withoutservice, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNUfree ought to be profitable.@footnote{Several such companies now exist.}We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming workand mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from asoftware vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, thevendor will tell you to get lost.If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is tohave all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any availableperson to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual.With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for mostbusinesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there tobe no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed ondistribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems,only some of them.Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't knowhow.Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holdingand repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money andget a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the servicehaving got the product free. The service companies will compete in qualityand price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, thoseof us who don't need the service should be able to use the program withoutpaying for the service.@quotation``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.''@end quotationThere are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used toinform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may betrue that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If thisis really so, a business which advertises the service of copying andmailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for itsadvertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from theadvertising pay for it.On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and suchcompanies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not reallynecessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don'twant to let the free market decide this?@footnote{The Free SoftwareFoundation raises most of its funds from a distribution service,although it is a charity rather than a company. If @emph{no one}chooses to obtain copies by ordering from the FSF, it will be unableto do its work. But this does not mean that proprietary restrictionsare justified to force every user to pay. If a small fraction of allthe users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient to keep the FSFafloat. So we ask users to choose to support us in this way. Have youdone your part?}@quotation``My company needs a proprietary operating systemto get a competitive edge.''@end quotationGNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will yourcompetitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete inother areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business isselling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough onyou. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from beingpushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from manymanufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.@footnote{A group ofcomputer companies recently pooled funds to support maintenance of theGNU C Compiler.}@quotation``Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?''@end quotationIf anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity canbe a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use theresults. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovativeprograms, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrictthe use of these programs.@quotation``Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?''@end quotationThere is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximizeone's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. Butthe means customary in the field of software today are based ondestruction.Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it isdestructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways thatthe program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanityderives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to becomewealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from themutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoardsinformation, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does notjustify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.@quotation``Won't programmers starve?''@end quotationI could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannotmanage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. Butwe are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on thestreet making faces, and starving. We do something else.But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicitassumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possiblybe 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 isthe most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it wereprohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move toother bases of organization which are now used less often. There arealways numerous ways to organize any kind of business.Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it isnow. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not consideredan injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. Ifprogrammers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (Inpractice they would still make considerably more than that.)@quotation``Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?''@end quotation``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 propertyrights@footnote{In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it wasto speak of ``the issue'' of ``intellectual property.'' That term isobviously biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps togethervarious disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays Iurge people to reject the term ``intellectual property'' entirely,lest it lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherentissue. The way to be clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, andtrademarks separately. See@uref{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml} for moreexplanation of how this term spreads confusion and bias.} carefully(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectualproperty. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that thegovernment recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation forspecific purposes.For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors todisclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help societyrather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years fora patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of theart. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom thecost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting upproduction, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstructmost individuals who use patented products.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 have survivedeven in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purposeof 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 whole wouldbenefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask:are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are welicensing a person to do?The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundredyears ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from oneneighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code andobject code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used ratherthan read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person whoenforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially andspiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether thelaw enables him to.@quotation``Competition makes things get done better.''@end quotationThe paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, weencourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way,it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always worksthis way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and becomeintent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies---such as,attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they willall finish late.Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in afist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem toobject to fights; he just regulates them (``For every ten yards you run,you can fire one shot''). He really ought to break them up, and penalizerunners for even trying to fight.@quotation``Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?''@end quotationActually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually thepeople who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicianswho keep at it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to thesituation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. Sothe right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetaryincentive? My experience shows that they will.For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at theArtificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have hadanywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame andappreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interestingwork for a lot of money.What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other thanriches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they willcome to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly incompetition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if thehigh-paying ones are banned.@quotation``We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that westop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.''@end quotationYou're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!@quotation``Programmers need to make a living somehow.''@end quotationIn the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways thatprogrammers could make a living without selling the right to use a program.This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen themost money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy tofind other ways if you want to find them. Here are 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 could alsoemploy programmers.People with new ideas could distribute programs asfreeware@footnote{Subsequently we have learned to distinguish between"free software" and "freeware". The term "freeware" means softwareyou are free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to studyand change the source code, so most of it is not free software. See@uref{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html} for moreexplanation.}, asking for donations from satisfied users, or sellinghand-holding services. I have met people who are already working thisway successfully.Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A groupwould contract with programming companies to write programs that thegroup's members would like to use.All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:@quotationSuppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent ofthe price as a software tax. The government gives this toan agency like the NSF to spend on software development.But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software developmenthimself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate tothe project of his own choosing---often, chosen because he hopes touse the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amountof donation up to the total tax he had to pay.The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers ofthe tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.The consequences:@itemize @bullet@itemThe computer-using community supports software development.@itemThis community decides what level of support is needed.@itemUsers who care which projects their share is spent oncan choose this for themselves.@end itemize@end quotationIn the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcityworld, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living.People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, suchas programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on requiredtasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroidprospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living fromprogramming.We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole societymust do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this hastranslated itself into leisure for workers because much nonproductiveactivity is required to accompany productive activity. The main causes ofthis are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against competition. Freesoftware will greatly reduce these drains in the area of softwareproduction. We must do this, in order for technical gains in productivityto translate into less work for us.@ignore arch-tag: 21eb38f8-6fa0-480a-91cd-f3dab7148542@end ignore