the-gnu-project

windows版本的emacs

   Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
   sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes--if we have built up a
   strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and
   non-free drivers are intolerable.  And will large numbers of us spend
   extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers?
   Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.

  Non-free libraries

   A non-free library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
   for free software developers.  The library's attractive features are
   the bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
   program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system.  (Strictly
   speaking, we could include your program, but it won't run with the
   library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses the proprietary
   library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers
   into the trap.

   The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the
   80s.  Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was
   clear what problem Motif would cause for them later on.  The GNU
   Project responded in two ways: by asking individual free software
   projects to support the free X toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and
   by asking for someone to write a free replacement for Motif.  The job
   took many years; LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became
   powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997.

   Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called
   Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop
   KDE.

   Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not
   use the library.  However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux
   systems who were not strict about sticking with free software added
   KDE to their systems--producing a system with more capabilities, but
   less freedom.  The KDE group was actively encouraging more programmers
   to use Qt, and millions of new "Linux users" had never been exposed to
   the idea that there was a problem in this.  The situation appeared
   grim.

   The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
   GNOME and Harmony.

   GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU's desktop
   project.  Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the
   support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop
   facilities, but using free software exclusively.  It has technical
   advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not
   just C++.  But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of
   any non-free software.

   Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
   possible to run KDE software without using Qt.

   In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license
   which, when carried out, should make Qt free software.  There is no way
   to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the community's
   firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was non-free.  (The
   new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable
   to avoid using Qt.)

   [Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU
   GPL, which essentially solved this problem.]

   How will we respond to the next tempting non-free library? Will the
   whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will
   many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major
   problem? Our future depends on our philosophy.

  Software patents

   The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put
   algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty
   years.  The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983,
   and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed
   GIFs.  In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was
   removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.

   There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
   patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job.
   But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a
   patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users
   want.  What will we do when this happens?

   Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with
   free software anyway.  We will manage to get work done without the
   patented features.  But those who value free software because they
   expect it to be techically superior are likely to call it a failure
   when a patent holds it back.  Thus, while it is useful to talk about
   the practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development,
   and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop
   there.  We must talk about freedom and principle.

  Free documentation

   The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
   software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
   our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
   package; when an important free software package does not come with a
   good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.

   Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
   price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
   free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
   Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
   and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
   program.

   Permission for modification is crucial too.  As a general rule, I don't
   believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify
   all sorts of articles and books.  For example, I don't think you or I
   are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which
   describe our actions and our views.

   But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
   for documentation for free software.  When people exercise their right
   to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
   conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
   accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.  A manual
   which does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the
   job, does not fill our community's needs.

   Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem.
   For example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
   notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok.  It is
   also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
   they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
   deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
   topics.  These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they
   don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to
   fit the modified program.  In other words, they don't block the free
   software community from making full use of the manual.

   However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
   the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media,
   through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
   obstruct the community, the manual is not free, and we need another
   manual.

   Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
   produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future
   depends on philosophy.

  We must talk about freedom

   Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
   systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat Linux.  Free software has
   developed such practical advantages that users are flocking to it for
   purely practical reasons.

   The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing
   free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more
   ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software
   instead of proprietary software products.

   But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the
   philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble.  Our ability to
   meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to
   stand firm for freedom.  To make sure our community has this will, we
   need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the
   community.

   But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our
   community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of
   our community.  We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts
   in balance.

  "Open Source"

   Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
   part of the community decided to stop using the term "free software"
   and say "open source software" instead.

   Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of "free" with
   "gratis"--a valid goal.  Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit
   of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU
   project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many
   of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above
   community, above principle.  Thus, the rhetoric of "open source"
   focuses on the potential to make high quality, powerful software, but
   shuns the ideas of freedom, community, and principle.

   The "Linux" magazines are a clear example of this--they are filled
   with advertisements for proprietary software that works with
   GNU/Linux.  When the next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines
   warn programmers to stay away from it, or will they run ads for it?

   The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways;
   all else being equal, it is useful.  But winning their support by
   speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it
   makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education
   even worse.

   "Free software" and "open source" describe the same category of
   software, more or less, but say different things about the software,
   and about values.  The GNU Project continues to use the term "free
   software", to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is
   important.

  Try!

   Yoda's philosophy ("There is no `try'") sounds neat, but it doesn't
   work for me.  I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I
   could do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the
   goal if I did.  But I tried anyway, because there was no one but me
   between the enemy and my city.  Surprising myself, I have sometimes
   succeeded.

   Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen.  Then I found
   another threatened city, and got ready for another battle.  Over time,
   I've learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my
   city, calling on other hackers to come and join me.

   Nowadays, often I'm not the only one.  It is a relief and a joy when I
   see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize,
   this city may survive--for now.  But the dangers are greater each year,
   and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community.  We can't take
   the future of freedom for granted.  Don't take it for granted! If you
   want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to defend it.

  Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Stallman

  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
  in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.