Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bionet!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!tut!santra!sja From: sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Why I do not support GNU Message-ID: Date: 16 Oct 89 10:59:38 GMT References: <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Sender: news@santra.UUCP Distribution: gnu Organization: Helsinki University of Technology Lines: 443 In-reply-to: rms@AI.MIT.EDU's message of 16 Oct 89 05:20:40 GMT Subject-was: Re: Purpose of info-gnu-emacs (and gnu.emacs) In article <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > We also have a "letter column" (gnu.misc.discuss) where other people > can send letters on the relevant social issues, including letters of > disagreement. So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow. You asked for it; here is something I wrote a couple of months ago. Why I Do Not Support GNU - A Statement Against Forced Freedom Sakari Jalovaara (sja@sirius.hut.fi) Version 1.00 All opinions expressed here are those of the author and not, as far as he knows, those of any organization. I would like to apologize in advance for any possible confusion caused by bad grammar and ill-chosen words in this document; English is not my native language. Corrections to any errors in facts in this document are welcome; send them via electronic mail to sja@sirius.hut.fi. This document is free (public domain.) Terminology =========== "Free" is used to mean unrestricted, no licenses, no lawyers needed, no threats of lawsuits made, no political or religious ideology attached, Public Domain. "Gnufree" is used to refer to the meaning given to the word "free" by FSF. Some Comments from Supporters of GNU ==================================== A member of FSF comments in the newsgroup gnu.gcc: wouldn't it be great if we could use fsf stuff without having to deal with fsf politics? It is my firm intention to make this as difficult as possible. The GNU project's purpose is politics. Note especially the purpose of the GNU project. What will he do to "FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his politics? Another comment from the same person: We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me. Some of them have already said so. If you are another one of these people, please spare the readers another message to this effect. Your opinion has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone. Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"? Again, the same person proposes to block messages from anyone working for Apple to the newsgroup gnu.gcc: However, if you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use arguments other than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained above) I think that is not valid. However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from you. Note the attitude "I know you are wrong, I don't care what you think, I just want to count how many of you there are." Free Software ============= If I am proud of the function I just wrote, I can allow you to cut-and-paste it to your own work by making it public domain. If I copyright my work you can only use it by copyrighting that portion of the code to me. You can't easily mix someone else's copyrighted code and my copyrighted code (whose copying conditions should you put on the result?) The only way I see out of this is true freedom - public domain programs. FSF's Bison (yacc replacement) output, G++ libraries, GNU dbm and other libraries can not be linked to free programs. This can bite in unexpected places: * If a student compiles his programming assignment with Bison or any of the libraries he will have to enforce GNU copyright on his program or he won't be able to return his program to his instructor. At least in the university I attend to, students own the code they write; it would be illegal for the instructors to force the students use Bison, GNU C++ libraries or other GNU libraries. * You gave a compiled "rn" program to a friend - with GNU libraries linked in? Sorry buddy, see you in court. (See the copyright laws of your country: FSF has little say to whether they sue you or not; they will *have* to or their copyright expires immediately!) Proprietary Software ==================== You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it. Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money. I can see several possibilities: * The modifications are trivial and you (or someone else) can duplicate them, driving the "hoarder" out of business. The users of the software benefit because they get the improvement you didn't spot yourself. * The modifications are complex but still someone duplicates them and makes them freely available. The "hoarder" will either be driven out of business or will have to make even more changes, leading to competition between you, the "hoarder" and other software developers (including other "hoarders.") All the time, the program is improved and the users get better and better programs. * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them. In this case, the users can choose between your free but not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial version. Without competition, they only would have one choice - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to stay in the competition. Competition is what some supporters of FSF call "standard argument #1" - and what is more commonly known as "capitalism" in the western world. The dictionary definition of capitalism is roughly: "a system where prices, production and distribution of goods are determined by competition in a free market." As far as I have seen, the "capitalist #1 argument" has resulted in better products (from shoes to software) than any other system. (Geography/political lesson for today: I live in Finland. Find out the name of the country east of Finland. Find out whether the country I live in has a capitalist system or not. If I wanted my life to be based on forced freedom I would move 200 km to the east and live on a sovkhoz.) (To get completely off track: this reminds me of the opening of the Hungary-West Germany border, with tens thousands of East Germans escaping to the capitalist west from a country where they were _forced_ to live under a _political_system_ they did not believe in. Maybe we will live to see an exodus from the GNU-type forced socialism to capitalism as well.) Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of "awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock accounting systems and control programs for VCRs. Are YOU going to write these programs if you don't get paid for them? Do you think a company will hire people to write them if the company doesn't get something out of it (e.g. a "competitive edge")? Will VCR buyers be happy if nobody spends money on the development of VCR software? If people are not allowed to sell the software they have written (like they are allowed to sell books they have written and potatoes they have grown) will they bother to learn programming in the first place? Are enough people (besides those who like writing "fun hacks") ready to pay $NNN.NNN for a university education if all they learn is a skill that can't be sold? In the ideological GNU world, programming is a hobby. In the real world, programming is a profession. Good programmers are a scarce resource. Intelligent people will study to be stock brokers instead of programmers if programming means an insecure future (financially and otherwise.) GNU Copyright Confusion ======================= Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright. Do you think that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these questions identically? If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing. Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was OK to copy GNU software freely." I know the answers to some of these questions; the point is: are you absolutely certain *you* know them. Copyright laws and international copyright agreements are definitely not simple. Now for the quiz: Suppose someone wanted a GNU program and, without my knowledge, copied the executable from /usr/local/bin where I installed it. I never gave him the source or the file called COPYING (which I earlier deleted to save disk space.) Am I breaking the law? Is the person who copied the program breaking the law? Same as above but I know the other person is copying the program and I OK it? If you print (make a paper copy of) a GNU source file do you have to print the file called COPYING as well? Can you give one page of the print to someone? What if that someone takes a page from the printer without your knowledge? FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications to the copyright on the source code. Can you legally apply the patch? Can you apply just the patches that don't change the copyright? (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.)) A company ships a GNU program but, to avoid having to give the source to their run-time system library, they require the user of the program to link it with the library. The company is benefiting from GNU but contributing nothing and "hoarding" the library source code. Should the company be blacklisted and boycotted? Sued? It has been said that the "user does the link" trick described above is quite legal and permits (in the eyes of the law, at least) shipping non-GNU software which uses GNU software. Which of the following are "moral" and which should lead to actions (lawsuits and/or blacklisting) against the company/person who does them: The user does the link (like the company mentioned above) The system administrator does the link The system administrator does the link and then demands money from the users before they can use the program (say, a university where the system administrator gets his salary from tuition fees paid by the users (students)) Same as above, but the GNU software requires so much maintenance that extra personnel have to be hired to take care of it and subsequently tuition fees have to be raised to pay their salary (effectively making GNU software cost real money) Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) and obey the law one major point remains: if the opinions of FSF clashes with your opinions they can (and seem quite willing to) blacklist you and hold demonstrations against you (like they are doing to one computer manufacturer.) There are lots of people that just won't trust fanatics enough to take the chance. The clearest copying condition I can think of is "public domain" - you can do anything with public domain work! That is what *I* call free. FSF Methodology =============== If I work on GNU software my work will be used to promote FSF political ideology - not just the parts I agree with. Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals? Do you even know the complete GNU policy? If a political party (remember, in the words of a member of FSF, "[t]he GNU project's purpose is politics") has some mother-and-apple-pie policies, are you ready to give your future - and maybe the future of everyone else - to their hands? Remember the attitude "even though I think you are mistaken" in "Some Comments from Supporters of GNU" above? GNU never was about democracy. As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change the copyright. I just won't trust fanatics that don't listen but say "you are mistaken." Remember, in the words of an FSF member: "It is my firm intention to make [using FSF stuff without having to deal with FSF politics] as difficult as possible." Just *what* are they going to do to my work to make it difficult for some people to use it? Here are some methods used by FSF to promote their policies: FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers' corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple. (Please note: I am not commenting on Apple policies, I am just commenting on FSF methodology. One can oppose the "look-and-feel" suit without believing in other GNU policies but the reverse is not true - if you support GNU, you are supporting all the goals GNU has or ever will have.) FSF also distributes a political manifesto that urges people against the Apple corporation and its employees. So far there is only one company on this blacklist. FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote their opinions. I see very little difference between this and burning of books. I will not help a group that does things like this, whether I believe in their ideology or not. FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees in the "gnu" newsgroups. I don't happen to believe in censorship, whatever the reasons for it are. Ban the thought police! A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail" if the law is against his convictions. I find it amazing how someone can place his own beliefs above those expressed by the community he lives in - so much so that he is ready to break any law he doesn't happen to like! I seem to be missing something here: why is it that pro-socialist movements tend to be anti-democracy? Okay, you have studied all the cases mentioned above and agree with FSF methods. Are you certain that you approve of the methods FSF adopts *tomorrow*? Your *programming* support for GNU will be regarded as support for FSF *ideology* and will be used to promote it using any methods FSF seems fit. Life, the Universe and Everything ================================= There are no easy answers to some questions. FSF claims that GNU is the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that principle (boycotts, the "my opinion is better than the law" and "I don't care what you say, you are wrong anyway" philosophies, the Perfect Truth on what kind of copying restrictions to impose on all software.) I think the score is more like this: * I do not have the complete answers * FSF does not have the complete answers The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their copyrights and bullying. To Oppose or Not To Oppose (or, Why Am I Writing This) ====================================================== Should I just sit back and ignore GNU? Should I use GNU software even if I don't support the political ideology of GNU? "Why I don't just shut up if you don't like GNU? Nobody is forcing you to use GNU software." Because that is EXACTLY the business FSF is in. Forcing people to do what *they* think is right. Remember software tax? Remember the GNU "license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll sue you.") What FSF proposes to do is not ONLY to write gnufree software but ALSO make any other kind of software either illegal (commercial software) or extinct (public domain software.) I want to be able to sell software. More importantly, I want to be able to *BUY* software. I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some that are actually contributing software to FSF. This makes me feel quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what they are really supporting. People are wasting their effort writing software that many people can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits. It seems to me that many people who support GNU and contribute to GNU do it because they like the idea of a no-cost operating system with source code. They haven't given much thought to the political goals and methods of FSF. Many would probably accept suitably covered-up nazism if it came with so-called "free" software... FSF will create a huge gap between universities and the "real world": companies will no longer be able to invest in university software projects in fear of GNU copyright contamination and lawsuits. This hurts not only commercial programmers, students and researchers but everyone whose standard of living is affected by computers and high technology -- in the long run everyone living in the "western world." I will - at least until my conscience really gets upset - continue to use GNU Emacs and the GNU debugger (other GNU programs being currently too buggy to warrant the trouble.) My sore conscience gets some consolation from the fact that FSF uses software written by non-GNU-supporters (TeX, X, hack, scheme, ...) to advocate their political ideology. I guess that when it comes to matters of conscience I am more a human being than a programmer. So What? ======== Think about it. Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my word for it. Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to your programming effort and the whole future of computers. If you are about to contribute a program to GNU, consider making it totally free: then both the GNU people and the less politically-minded among us can use it. There might even be a truly free collection of software one day for use by everyone regardless of their religion, political views and employer. Think about it.