Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stallman: The GNU GPL and the American Way

Expand Messages
  • CYMM
    Stallman: The GNU GPL and the American Way by Richard Stallman. Microsoft describes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as an open source license, and
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Stallman: The GNU GPL and the American Way
      by Richard Stallman.

      Microsoft describes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as an "open
      source" license, and says it is against the American Way. To understand the
      GNU GPL, and recognize how it embodies the American Way, you must first be
      aware that the GPL was not designed for open source.

      The Open Source Movement, which was launched in 1998, aims to develop
      powerful, reliable software and improved technology, by inviting the public
      to collaborate in software development. Many developers in that movement use
      the GNU GPL, and they are welcome to use it. But the ideas and logic of the
      GPL cannot be found in the Open Source Movement. They stem from the deeper
      goals and values of the Free Software Movement.

      The Free Software Movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration comes
      from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community, and voluntary cooperation. This
      is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech, and to free software.

      As in "free enterprise" and "free speech", the "free" in "free software"
      refers to freedom, not price; specifically, it means that you have the
      freedom to study, change, and redistribute the software you use. These
      freedoms permit citizens to help themselves and help each other, and thus
      participate in a community. This contrasts with the more common proprietary
      software, which keeps users helpless and divided: the inner workings are
      secret, and you are prohibited from sharing the program with your neighbor.
      Powerful, reliable software and improved technology are useful byproducts of
      freedom, but the freedom to have a community is important in its own right.

      We could not establish a community of freedom in the land of proprietary
      software where each program had its lord. We had to build a new land in
      cyberspace--the free software GNU operating system, which we started writing
      in 1984. In 1991, when GNU was almost finished, the kernel Linux written by
      Linus Torvalds filled the last gap; soon the free GNU/Linux system was
      available. Today millions of users use GNU/Linux and enjoy the benefits of
      freedom and community.

      I designed the GNU GPL to uphold and defend the freedoms that define free
      software--to use the words of 1776, it establishes them as inalienable
      rights for programs released under the GPL. It ensures that you have the
      freedom to study, change, and redistribute the program, by saying that
      nobody is authorized to take these freedoms away from you by redistributing
      the program.

      For the sake of cooperation, we encourage others to modify and extend the
      programs that we publish. For the sake of freedom, we set the condition that
      these modified versions of our programs must respect your freedom just like
      the original version. We encourage two-way cooperation by rejecting
      parasites: whoever wishes to copy parts of our software into his program
      must let us use parts of that program in our programs. Nobody is forced to
      join our club, but those who wish to participate must offer us the same
      cooperation they receive from us. That makes the system fair.

      Millions of users, tens of thousands of developers, and companies as large
      as IBM, Intel, and Sun, have chosen to participate on this basis. But some
      companies want the advantages without the responsibilities.

      >From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an improved
      version of this program if you allow us to release it without freedom." We
      say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if they were free, but if
      we can't use them in freedom, they are no good at all." Then they appeal to
      our egos, saying that our code will have "more users" inside their
      proprietary programs. We respond that we value our community's freedom more
      than an irrelevant form of popularity.

      Microsoft surely would like to have the benefit of our code without the
      responsibilities. But it has another, more specific purpose in attacking the
      GNU GPL. Microsoft is known generally for imitation rather than innovation.
      When Microsoft does something new, its purpose is strategic--not to improve
      computing for its users, but to close off alternatives for them.

      Microsoft uses an anticompetitive strategy called "embrace and extend". This
      means they start with the technology others are using, add a minor wrinkle
      which is secret so that nobody else can imitate it, then use that secret
      wrinkle so that only Microsoft software can communicate with other Microsoft
      software. In some cases, this makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft
      program when others you work with use a Microsoft program. In other cases,
      this makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft program for job A if you
      use a Microsoft program for job B. Either way, "embrace and extend"
      magnifies the effect of Microsoft's market power.

      No license can stop Microsoft from practicing "embrace and extend" if they
      are determined to do so at all costs. If they write their own program from
      scratch, and use none of our code, the license on our code does not affect
      them. But a total rewrite is costly and hard, and even Microsoft can't do it
      all the time. Hence their campaign to persuade us to abandon the license
      that protects our community, the license that won't let them say, "What's
      yours is mine, and what's mine is mine." They want us to let them take
      whatever they want, without ever giving anything back. They want us to
      abandon our defenses.

      But defenselessness is not the American Way. In the land of the brave and
      the free, we defend our freedom with the GNU GPL.

      Addendum: Microsoft says that the GPL is against "intellectual property
      rights." I have no opinion on "intellectual property rights," because the
      term is too broad to have a sensible opinion about. It is a catch-all,
      covering copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other disparate areas of law;
      areas so different, in the laws and in their effects, that any statement
      about all of them at once is surely simplistic. To think intelligently about
      copyrights, patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately. The
      first step is declining to lump them together as "intellectual property".

      My views about copyright take an hour to expound, but one general principle
      applies: it cannot justify denying the public important freedoms. As Abraham
      Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and
      property rights, human rights must prevail." Property rights are meant to
      advance human well-being, not as an excuse to disregard it.

      Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman
      Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in
      any medium without royalty provide the copyright notice and this notice are
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.