Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6395 comp.misc:11252 comp.windows.x:31984
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!nexus.YorkU.CA!oz
From: oz@nexus.YorkU.CA (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.misc,comp.windows.x
Subject: rms says...
Message-ID: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 29 Jan 91 15:35:48 GMT
Sender: news@yunexus.YorkU.CA
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 50
Keywords:

[this article appeared in a gnu newsgroup, and it is thought to be very
illuminating for those following the progress of FSF, and its politics,
from either supportive or non-supportive positions.        enjoy... oz]

---
   
   From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
   Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
   Subject: Why we use copyleft
   Message-ID: <9101282011.AA20121@mole.ai.mit.edu>
   Date: 28 Jan 91 20:11:23 GMT
   Lines: 37
   
   Currently we don't let people turn our software into proprietary
   software.  Some people consider our policy "taking away freedom".  But
   freedom to do what?  Only the freedom to be a software hoarder and
   undermine the freedom of others.
   
   Thus, the question is whether we defend freedom best by trying to
   prevent others from taking it away, or by passively letting everyone
   else do whatever they want.
   
   Some people are pacifists; they believe in being peaceful even to
   murderers, rapists or tyrants.  It would be fully consistent for a
   pacifist to believe in putting software in the public domain.
   
   But I'm not a pacifist.  (Most of you are not pacifists either.)  I
   think it makes sense to have policemen try to stop or catch murderers,
   and armies or revolutions try to stop or catch tyrants, even if they
   have to shoot.  Likewise, though on a different scale of intensity, I
   think it makes sense to use the weapons of software hoarding (such as
   copyright) against hoarders to prevent hoarding.  Think of this as
   economic sanctions--offering aid in exchange for progress in
   recognizing particular human rights.
   
   If that means we lose business, that's ok.  We also lose business when
   we refuse to trade with South Africa or Iraq.  The purpose of the GNU
   project is not to maximize the amount of use of GNU software.  It is
   to promote freedom.
   
   The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft.
   Most users who get X Windows get just a binary.  They can't get the
   source for the version they are running.  The MIT source may not
   interoperate with it, since it may not contain the changes needed for
   the particular operating system in use.  The result is that X Windows
   is not free for most users.  (I myself have had this problem.)  And
   many improvements made to X Windows are kept proprietary and do not
   get back to the community.  GNU software avoids this problem, while
   being nonetheless well accepted.  This shows that the copyleft is
   working.  It would be silly for us to drop our sanctions now.