RMS WRITINGS ************************** The GNU Project software sharing community at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab, 1971 "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." p.15 software was free by then although the term "free software" didnt exist On Hacking > difficult to define "I think what most "hacks" have in common is playfulness, cleverness, and exploration. Thus, hacking means exploring the limits f what is possible, in a spirit of playful cleverness. Activities that display playful cleverness have "hack value." crackers are the ones who do security breaking >> a confusion on the part of the mass media users natural right to copy >>> !! copyright limits placing the users first "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." 16 desire to have a community of hackers, a community that was gone from the AI >>> solution to write a free operating system community of cooperating hackers an operating system >> includes command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters, debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more free as in freedom nothing to do with price clear purpose : create a new software-sharing community GNU Emacs >> usable in 1985 editor people wanted to use Emacs >>> RMS starts a free software distribution business :: copies for $150 mailed in tape clear goal of GNU :: to give the users freedom, not just to be popular. vision and plan >> to have a complete operating system GNU/Linux >> GNU system with Linux as the kernel "The rhetoric of 'open source' focuses on the potential to make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle." 30 FS and OS describe more or less the same category of software but " say differnte things about the software and about values. GNU project continues to use the term "free software" to express the idea that freedom is important ************************ The GNU Manifesto I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work. p.33 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. p.33 I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as making money. p.33 All Computer Users Will Benefit Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free. p.34 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. p.36 When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. p36 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. p.36 “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. 37 The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. 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. P.37 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. P.37 making programs free is a step toward the postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. P.38 ************************************** The Free Software Definition “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. p.41 ****************** Why Software Should Not Have Owners Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. p.45 The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for mass-production copying. p.45 Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. p.45 against attempts to block the sharing of information freedom and spirit of voluntary cooperation Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives. And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they pollute our society's civic spirit. p.48 Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software. p.48 ************************ What is in a name? origins of linux system in the GNU project >> sytem origin, history and purpose "Our community strength rest on commitment to freedom and cooperation." 51 commitment to the freedom to cooperate and to "community spirit" ******************** Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” different values The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution. p.55 The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary software. 55 We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community, but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different views. 55 OS The official definition of “open source software,” as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). Fear of Freedom talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. The term “open source” is offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be “more acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source movement stem from this decision. 57 practical advantage >> avoid value freedom free software gives you freedom ************** Selling free Software talking about freedom not about price user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes "Free Software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community." 63 ******************** "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" Transcript of Richard M. Stallman's speech, "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation" New York University in New York, New York on 29 May 2001 sharing recipes :: cooking Hey, Can I have a copy? common decency towards others 1970s > community of programmers who shared software the entire operating system was software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free software, but there was no free software movement. 157 But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as programmers -- after all, we had written our own timesharing system -- we were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer software. 158 >>> "I cannot give you a copy" :: i cannot share :: copyright : refuse to cooperate a social phenomenon that was important and affected a lot of people. unethical >>> promise not to share useful information >>>software : generally useful technical information Science and Tech ::: for humanity the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to withhold that information -- if we keep it secret -- then we are betraying the mission of our field. p.159 >>decides to write an operating system :: something that was needed >>> compatible with Unix ::: a portable system Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. p.161 Now, making the system upward compatible with UNIX actually made all the immediate design decisions, because UNIX consists of many pieces, and they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented. So if you want to be compatible with UNIX, you have to replace each piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. 161 I came across the word "GNU" -- the word "GNU" is the funniest word in the English language. GNU Emacs in September 1984, I started writing GNU Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the UNIX editor. [Laughter] So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to use it, it was also -- other people wanted to use it too. p.162 First FS business So, I was looking for some way I could make money through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free software business. I announced, "Send me $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of the year they were trickling in. p.162 *Freedom One meaning refers to price, and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether that person be a programmer or not. 163 * freedom to change the software to suit your needs It is very important to having lots of people tinkering. 164 *sharing :: friendship for beings that can think and learn, sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit of goodwill -- the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -- is society's most important resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude. 164 *Spirit of cooperation the society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. if you want a better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing. You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. 164 I think this is actually the most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our lives. 165 Anybody can make another copy. And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a tiny bit of electricity. 165 * community : and help each other ::: "I think I saw a bug in the source code" help build your community by publishing an improved version of the software. When I first released GNU Emacs -- the first piece of the GNU system that people actually wanted to use -- and when it started having users, after a while, I got a message saying, "I think I saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix." And I got another message, "Here's code to add a new feature." And another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another, and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making use of all this help I was getting was a big job. 166 *OS That other group of people -- which is called the open source movement -- they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say, however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go to companies and say to them, "You know, you might make more money if you let people do this." So, what you can see is that to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical reasons. 166 they have contributed -- they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a tremendous disagreement. 167 ** science and collaboration we're working together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. **SOurce code Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely hard. [Laughter] Even trivial changes like using four digits for the date, [Laughter] if you don't have source. So, for compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a precondition, a requirement, for free software. 168 *GOALS : liberty, cooperation our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so, if he or she wishes. 169 *"copyleft" It's called copyleft because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very different goal. Here's what we do. We say, "This program is copyrighted." And, of course, by default, that means it's prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we say, "You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified versions and extended versions. Change it any way you like." 169 copyleft defencd the freedom of the software for every user 2way cooperation :: GNU GPL It says, if you want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation. 170 Many companies -- even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free software. *Linux :: the missing piece : the kernel at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination. 172 So, they looked around -- and lo and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good fortune, they said. [Laughter] It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it together, and have a system. We actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where that vision was. they dont mention political and social ideas : the freedom apolitical philosphy of Linus Trovalds If they knew that the system they liked -- or, in some cases, love and go wild over -- is our idealistic, political philosophy made real. Here's the GNU philosophy. This philosophy is why this system that I like very much exists," results achieved by the GNU philosophy :: political and social issue >>> deserves credit free software relates to our society free software is useful for business -control: change what you want to change -free market for support -security and privacy community checking: : security Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large community, and there are people in that community who are checking things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any program, they might find it and fix it. 176 *user is king in the world of free software After all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the world of free software. 176 **Democratic free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. 176 ::code as law (code) written in a democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy -- we don't have a big election and say, "Everybody vote which way should this feature be done." [Laughter] Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go. 177 *long term view :: improve society We just have to have enough long-term view to realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit from that investment. 180 ************************ Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general. ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned. FS The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users. OS The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement. Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. teaching people to value freedom We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers whether a device will let you run your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases. Open >> as participatory The term “open source” has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only means “participatory”. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing free software. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it. That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom. Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open source” discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom. Conclusion As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our campaign. Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. ***************** Why Software Should Not Have Owners http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change. Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives. And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they pollute our society's civic spirit. This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds. In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company formed specifically for the purpose. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software. You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.