It was twenty years ago on Monday that I quit my job at MIT to begin developing a free software operating system, GNU. While we have never released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly are not aware it is such. Free software does not mean "gratis"; it means that users are free to run the program, study the source code, change it, and redistribute it either with or without changes, either gratis or for a fee.
My hope was that a free operating system would open a path to escape forever from the system of subjugation which is proprietary software. I had experienced the ugliness of the way of life that non-free software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give others a way to escape.
Non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. Worst of all, you are forbidden to share it with anyone else. To prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.
Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to "use free software". But what does it mean to "use free software"? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our work? In other words, are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the shallow goal of popularity?
It's easy to get in the habit of overlooking this distinction, because in many common situations it makes no difference. When you're trying to convince a person to try a free program, or to install the GNU/Linux operating system, either goal would lead to the same practical conduct. However, in other situations the two goals inspire very different actions.
For instance, what should we say when the non-free Invidious video driver, the non-free Prophecy database, or the non-free Indonesia language interpreter and libraries, is released in a version that runs on GNU/Linux? Should we thank the developers for this "support" for our system, or should we regard this non-free program like any other -- as an attractive nuisance, a temptation to accept bondage, a problem to be solved?
Talkback
The problem is, the majority of people are like myself, not intent on disappearing up our own anal passages, but trying to earn the money that feeds our children. "Free software" and "community" are fine concepts, and I will happily encourage them while it does not impact negatively on my ability to pay the bills. Unfortunately, I see your vision as putting programmers out of work at worst, or making them change into lower paid support personnel at best.
All religions should die eventually, even those that limit the scope of their promises.
Perhaps Mr. Stallman would care to contribute an article that addresses how developers get paid for the work that they do?
Biggest load of hippy babble I've ever read. Why is software different from any other manufactured product? Why after 20 years of free software aren’t we over run by top quality free software? File under nice idea.
"Why is software different from any other manufactured product?" - because there's no EULA on your transistor radio that forbids you from taking it apart to see how it works.
On the other hand, I can't agree with Stallman. I believe everyone should have the freedom to choose 'non-free' software if they want to. Bringing in ideology to override pragmatism is not helpful.
Where should this goal of "freedom" end?
I'm employed by a major insurer in developing leading edge e-commerce systems which will give us competitive advantage.
Is Mr Stallman saying that we should "free" this code and give it to our competitors?
I'm also an avid games player who not only buys games regularly, but also pays a monthly subscription to a paid-for online game. Without myself and others paying for those games, they would simply not be available.
Whilst I agree with the aims of creating a viable free software community, there IS a place for proprietary and paid-for software.
Respectfully, Mr Stallman needs to come down from his Ivory tower.
Free software is never free the costs are just 'different'. its my experience that 'free' software is often more complicated to install and maintain, the cost here is my time.
'Free' as in 'freedom', not 'beer'.
You've entirely missed the point.
'Free' in 'free software' means 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in beer'. That means you have the freedom to look at it and find out how it works, and to distribute it to others for them to do the same. It is not about monetary cost. You are allowed to sell 'free' software for a fee. (But you can't prevent others from giving it away.)
Read Stallman's definition of 'free software' at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. I happen to disagree with his insistance that this is a moral issue, but please let's at least get the facts right.
Anonymous said :
"'Free' in 'free software' means 'free as in freedom', not 'free as in beer'. That means you have the freedom to look at it and find out how it works, and to distribute it to others for them to do the same. It is not about monetary cost. You are allowed to sell 'free' software for a fee. (But you can't prevent others from giving it away.)"
With respect, I think the point has been missed by this poster.
I posted about computer games. They take millions of pounds in development costs. Obviously the companies investing in this only do so to make a return on their capital.
Why would they do this if the first person who bought the game could GIVE it to all their friends?
They wouldn't, and the free/open source market cannot compete with the production values of the professional games market. (Not least things like licensing of films/TV shows, using actual actors voices plus their likenesses, etc, all need to be paid for).
As I said, proprietary and paid for software DOES have its place, however laudable the aims of free software are.
In response to a previous poster:
"Where should this goal of "freedom" end?
I'm employed by a major insurer in developing leading edge e-commerce systems which will give us competitive advantage.
Is Mr Stallman saying that we should "free" this code and give it to our competitors?" "
The main ideea behind the free-sofware philosophy is the sharing of your code. As you probably know, to develop a complicated software system (ERP for example) you must divide it in modules so you can control better it. Now, just think that you can use many of these modules, that are already written (GPL licensed). You are not forced to reinvent the wheel. In this way your system can be developed quickly.
Now you will sell your program not as a product, but as a service. Your customers will pay you a regular fee for mentenance for example (or improvements). Ok, since your code is freely available in public domain, your competitors may get it, may sell it, but don't forget that any improvements will be also available for you, so in this way you can later can sell a better product.
There are places for everybody...in the market. You will gain advantages through marketing. If you are a better seller..you will be paid as well.
Take a look at RedHat or Caldera. They are earning money in this way, with this business
model.
"[...] I'm also an avid games player who not only buys games regularly, but also pays a monthly subscription to a paid-for online game. Without myself and others paying for those games, they would simply not be available. [...]"
Ok, so do I :).
To pay for a subscription for an online-gaime doesn't mean that that game it is not free (free like in freedom). Since the sources are available and licensed under GPL. GPL does not mention anything about economical part. You talk about hardware and technical support needs of these companies. Sure, the company is right in asking money for playing online that game. But, they must make public the source code behind their system. And this is not a bad thing. They will continue to ear money as well.
Will programmers starve?
No, definitely, they will not. (just my two cents).
In addition take a look at this link, and I hope that all of you will think different in the future:
[http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/jobs.php]
And don't forget. This is our world, nobody can control it, not either giants like M$. They are not have the right to.
Best regards from Romania.