Subversion Repositories shark

Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies

of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and

permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the

recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this

notice.

   Modified versions may not be made.

The GNU Manifesto

*****************

     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 the available GNU software,

     please see the latest issue of the GNU's Bulletin.  The list is

     much too long to include here.

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.(1) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why All Computer Users Will Benefit

===================================

   Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system

software free, just like air.(2)

   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.

Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals

==============================================

     "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."

   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.(3)

   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.

     "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."

   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?(4)

     "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a

     competitive edge."

   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.(5)

     "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"

   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.

     "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his

     creativity?"

   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.

     "Won't programmers starve?"

   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.)

     "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is

     used?"

   "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

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.

     "Competition makes things get done better."

   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.

     "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"

   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.

     "We need the programmers desperately.  If they demand that we stop

     helping our neighbors, we have to obey."

   You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.

Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!

     "Programmers need to make a living somehow."

   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, 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:

     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:

        * The computer-using community supports software development.

        * This community decides what level of support is needed.

        * Users who care which projects their share is spent on can

          choose this for themselves.

   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.

   ---------- Footnotes ----------

   (1)  The wording here was careless.  The intention was that nobody

would have to pay for *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.

   (2)  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.

   (3)  Several such companies now exist.

   (4)  The Free Software Foundation raises most of its funds from a

distribution service, although it is a charity rather than a company.

If *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?

   (5)  A group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support

maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.