# HG changeset patch # User Glenn Morris # Date 1189053980 0 # Node ID 63916b93d747c879f8f55074980e85f2e0e8d853 # Parent 52ad3c1bdacf7c46364b0078470c282b945bdb70 Move here from ../../man diff -r 52ad3c1bdacf -r 63916b93d747 doc/emacs/gnu.texi --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/doc/emacs/gnu.texi Thu Sep 06 04:46:20 2007 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,567 @@ +@c This is part of the Emacs manual. +@c Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, +@c 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +@ifclear justgnu +@node Manifesto,, Microsoft Windows, Top +@unnumbered The GNU Manifesto +@end ifclear +@ifset justgnu +Copyright @copyright{} 1985, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, +2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. + +Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document +under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or +any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no +Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU +Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below. A copy of the +license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation +License'' in the Emacs manual. + +(a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify +this GNU Manual, like GNU software. Copies published by the Free +Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.'' + +This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free +Documentation License. If you want to distribute this document +separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the +license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license. + +@node Top +@top The GNU Manifesto +@end ifset + +@quotation +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 available GNU software, please see +our web site, @uref{http://www.gnu.org}. For software tasks and other +ways to contribute, 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 complete +Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it +away free to everyone who can use it.@footnote{The wording here was +careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay for +@emph{permission} to use the GNU system. But the words don't make this +clear, and people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU +should always be distributed at little or no charge. That was never the +intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the possibility of companies +providing the service of distribution for a profit. Subsequently I have +learned to distinguish carefully between ``free'' in the sense of +freedom and ``free'' in the sense of price. Free software is software +that users have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may +obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to obtain copies---and if +the funds help support improving the software, so much the better. The +important thing is that everyone who has a copy has the freedom to +cooperate with others in using it.} Several other volunteers are helping +me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly +needed. + +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, and +around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A +new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released +this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to +emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be +possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We +will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We +will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will +add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of +other 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 experience +with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer +file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file name +completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps +eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs +and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be +available 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 virtual +memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra +effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to 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. + +@unnumberedsec Why I Must Write GNU + +I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must +share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide +the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with +others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I +cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software +license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence +Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually +they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such +things are done for me against my will. + +So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to +put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to +get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the +AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away. + +@unnumberedsec Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix + +Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features +of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks +without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be +convenient for many other people to adopt. + +@unnumberedsec How GNU Will Be Available + +GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and +redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its +further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not +be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free. + +@unnumberedsec Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help + +I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to +help. + +Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system +software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to +feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as +comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the +sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially +forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software +must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide +that friendship is more important. But those 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 making money. + +By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be +hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an +example 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 use +software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this +is an important happiness that money cannot replace. + +@unnumberedsec How You Can Contribute + +I 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 run +on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use +systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of +sophisticated cooling or power. + +I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for +GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard +to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together. +But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A +complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which +is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix +compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for +a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the original +on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together. +Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assembling +these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer +communication 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 or +part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm +looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as +making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote +their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a +living in another way. + +@unnumberedsec Why All Computer Users Will Benefit + +Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system +software free, just like air.@footnote{This is another place I failed to +distinguish carefully between the two different meanings of ``free.'' +The statement as it stands is not false---you can get copies of GNU +software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does +suggest 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 will +be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state 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 them himself, +or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users +will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the +sources and is in sole position to make changes. + +Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by +encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's +computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on +the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by +actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by +this. + +Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what +one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. + +Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of +copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome +mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a +person must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey +them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great +cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the +metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can +afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you +ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air +plant with a head tax and chuck the masks. + +Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as +breathing, 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 rely +on any support.'' + +``You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the +support.'' +@end quotation + +If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without +service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU +free ought to be profitable.@footnote{Several such companies now exist.} + +We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work +and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a +software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the +vendor will tell you to get lost. + +If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to +have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available +person 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 most +businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to +be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on +distribution 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 know +how. + +Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding +and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and +get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service +having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality +and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those +of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without +paying 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 quotation + +There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to +inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be +true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this +is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and +mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its +advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the +advertising pay for it. + +On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such +companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really +necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't +want to let the free market decide this?@footnote{The Free Software +Foundation 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 unable +to do its work. But this does not mean that proprietary restrictions +are justified to force every user to pay. If a small fraction of all +the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient to keep the FSF +afloat. So we ask users to choose to support us in this way. Have you +done your part?} + +@quotation +``My company needs a proprietary operating system +to get a competitive edge.'' +@end quotation + +GNU 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 your +competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in +other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is +selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on +you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being +pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems. + +I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many +manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.@footnote{A group of +computer companies recently pooled funds to support maintenance of the +GNU C Compiler.} + +@quotation +``Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?'' +@end quotation + +If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can +be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the +results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative +programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict +the use of these programs. + +@quotation +``Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?'' +@end quotation + +There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize +one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But +the means customary in the field of software today are based on +destruction. + +Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is +destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that +the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity +derives 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 become +wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the +mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. +Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards +information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. +Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not +justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity. + +@quotation +``Won't programmers starve?'' +@end quotation + +I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot +manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But +we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the +street making faces, and starving. We do something else. + +But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit +assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly +be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. + +The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be +possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as +now. + +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 it were +prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move 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 it is +now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered +an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If +programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In +practice 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 over +other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more +difficult. + +People who have studied the issue of intellectual property +rights@footnote{In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was +to speak of ``the issue'' of ``intellectual property.'' That term is +obviously biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together +various disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I +urge people to reject the term ``intellectual property'' entirely, +lest it lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent +issue. The way to be clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and +trademarks separately. See +@uref{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml} for more +explanation of how this term spreads confusion and bias.} carefully +(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual +property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the +government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for +specific purposes. + +For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to +disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society +rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for +a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the +art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the +cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up +production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct +most individuals who use patented products. + +The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors +frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This +practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived +even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose +of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was +invented---books, which could be copied economically only on a printing +press---it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals +who read the books. + +All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society +because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would +benefit 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 we +licensing a person to do? + +The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred +years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one +neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and +object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather +than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who +enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and +spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the +law enables him to. + +@quotation +``Competition makes things get done better.'' +@end quotation + +The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we +encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, +it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works +this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become +intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies---such as, +attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will +all finish late. + +Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a +fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to +object 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 penalize +runners for even trying to fight. + +@quotation +``Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?'' +@end quotation + +Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive. +Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the +people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians +who 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 the +situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So +the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary +incentive? My experience shows that they will. + +For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the +Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had +anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and +appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself. + +Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting +work for a lot of money. + +What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than +riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will +come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in +competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the +high-paying ones are banned. + +@quotation +``We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we +stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.'' +@end quotation + +You'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 quotation + +In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that +programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program. +This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the +most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to +find 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 of +operating systems onto the new hardware. + +The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also +employ programmers. + +People with new ideas could distribute programs as +freeware@footnote{Subsequently we have discovered the need to +distinguish between ``free software'' and ``freeware''. The term +``freeware'' means software you are free to redistribute, but usually +you are not free to study and change the source code, so most of it is +not free software. See +@uref{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html} for more +explanation.}, asking for 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. A group +would contract with programming companies to write programs that the +group's members would like to use. + +All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: + +@quotation +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: + +@itemize @bullet +@item +The computer-using community supports software development. +@item +This community decides what level of support is needed. +@item +Users who care which projects their share is spent on +can choose this for themselves. +@end itemize +@end quotation + +In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity +world, 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, such +as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required +tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid +prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from +programming. + +We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole society +must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this has +translated itself into leisure for workers because much nonproductive +activity is required to accompany productive activity. The main causes of +this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against competition. Free +software will greatly reduce these drains in the area of software +production. We must do this, in order for technical gains in productivity +to translate into less work for us. + +@ignore + arch-tag: 21eb38f8-6fa0-480a-91cd-f3dab7148542 +@end ignore