- Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-
- by Richard Stallman
-
-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.
-
-Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's
-potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be
-the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
-
-The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass
-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
-because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
-take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
-not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
-few readers were sued for that.
-
-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. Consider these four
-practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
-
-* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
-to help your friend.
-
-* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
-colleagues.
-
-* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
-told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
-
-* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
-such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not
-accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities
-unguarded and failing to censor their use.
-
-All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
-where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
-and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
-from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the
-motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
-the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
-not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
-matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
-
-Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
-to control how we use information:
-
-* Name calling.
-
-Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert
-terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a
-certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between
-programs and physical objects.
-
-Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
-whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They
-don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners
-ask us to apply them anyway.
-
-* Exaggeration.
-
-Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy
-programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the
-owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who
-made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
-
-A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
-copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every
-one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
-
-* The law.
-
-Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
-penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
-suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
-morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
-as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
-
-This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
-thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
-
-It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
-should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many
-states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
-racists would say sitting there was wrong.
-
-* Natural rights.
-
-Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
-written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
-interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
-else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
-companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
-expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
-
-To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more
-important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author
-myself, call it bunk.
-
-But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
-natural rights claims for two reasons.
-
-One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
-cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from
-eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material
-interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest
-distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
-
-But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
-and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
-affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
-have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
-
-The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
-for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
-
-As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
-rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
-Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits*
-a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says
-that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of
-copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright
-does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is
-intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
-
-The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
-into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be
-justified for the public's sake.
-
-* Economics.
-
-The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
-leads to production of more software.
-
-Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
-to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of
-software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
-something if they are well paid for doing so.
-
-But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
-that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
-It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the
-software has owners or not.
-
-People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
-experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
-You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or
-for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
-Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
-the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
-once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
-directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
-
-This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an
-owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with
-it if you acquire it.
-
-But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
-what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
-just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
-software owners to produce something--but not what society really
-needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
-all.
-
-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.
-
-The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
-is real. 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.
-
-For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
-of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
-rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough
-incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
-
-For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
-from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
-enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
-eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
-that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
-features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
-
-The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software
-development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all
-of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
-donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
-employees who handle mail orders.
-
-Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
-Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per
-cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable
-percentage for a software company.
-
-Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
-Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free
-GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the
-Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this
-is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
-
-All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
-small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio
-in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity
-without forcing each user to pay.
-
-As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
-program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
-refuse. 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.
-
-You deserve free software.
-
-
-Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
-Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
-without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
-alteration is not permitted.
+Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+
+Note added March 2014:
+
+This file is obsolete and will be removed in future.
+Please update any references to use
+
+<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html>
HCoop / bpt / emacs.git / blobdiff