The GNU ManifestoGNU �Ó

Richard M. Stallman∗

HVÕBlade Sun†‡§

Copyright c©1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies of thisdocument as received, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice andpermission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipientpermission 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 thebeginning of the GNU project, to ask for participation and support. For the firstfew years, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now itseems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.

Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings thatdifferent wording could help avoid. Footnotes added in 1993 help clarify thesepoints.

For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please see the latestissue of the GNU’s Bulletin. The list is much too long to include here.

What’s GNU? Gnu’s Not Unix!��4GNUÚGnu’s Not Unix!

GNU1 , 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

∗ý©�cê*V ÁGNU��{ð©Ç1ùé�J¯�{Õt���-DÕwww.gnu.org†H©Çý 0.2 ���FØÝ��[OFÇ>����GÉHVÕgnuwin32@mail.com‡ý©Æ©óX3�Ï�X3{ÇýÇ©Q�ñ����IFÇ�#1Æ©�ï�§HV&~{mGÕAMD486 100MHz, 16M, 1.3G� HV&~{�GÕLinux kernel 2.2.10 (Tur-

boLinux), ZWinPro, XFree86, LessTif, WindowMaker, vim, gnotepad+, cxterm, lynx, teTEX, LATEX2e,CJK, dvips, ghostscript, gv�

1HVÕÕgnu n. �«��:³{�ñÇnj�

1

everyone who can use it.2 Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributionsof time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.

GNUÇS,Gnu’s Not UnixÇ4·tó�U{¦Unixq\/�{�Gø:{ÖÁÇ·R²Ç½D��8É&~Ç{|����Ç�ÑVtóÐÏ·�:����à�ñ�{�-�ý��Ç�1ù÷÷�

So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands, a sourcelevel debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and around 35 utilities.A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A new portable optimizing Ccompiler has compiled itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel existsbut many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and compilerare finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for programdevelopment. We will use TEX3 as our text formatter, but an nroff is being workedon. We will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will adda portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of otherthings, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, everything usefulthat normally comes with a Unix system, and more.

tø���·¢p�1Lisp�w× {Emacs©ý�öìÇÍShÿ{®AìǦyacc/�{ª�IÛìÇËzÇ�ZLÕ35«Óä�shellÃ× q�:ìÄ.z£qÄ�c{,#�{C�Hì.²�ê�·�HÇ,�ó�#��,��Çðÿ{{�X.²?ób�����Íõ{�u1Ü�Unix�h�XZ�HìqÄ{��ÇÒ,���Y�P7\Ç� �{GNUø:�·¢R&~TEX*�·¢{©ý\ÇÓäÇbnroffÇ��ó�U�¥�3�·¢R&~½D{Ç,#�{X@ø:�øêÞÁt{Ç·¢R��,#�{Common LispÇEmpire�úÇ��,ÂÇZj1º�{ÙÇÀÜÇi�ó"©l�·¢æ�ØUnixø:ÄØÄ��~{ÀÜÇ��Íõ�

GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. Wewill make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with otheroperating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames, file version num-bers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independentdisplay support, and perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through whichseveral Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and

2*VÆÕÕThe wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to payfor *permission* to use the GNU system. But the words don’t make this clear, and people ofteninterpret 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 providingthe 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 usershave the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, whileothers pay to obtain copies–and if the funds help support improving the software, so much thebetter. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy has the freedom to cooperate withothers in using it.

3HVÕÕTEX -�Þ�-&~{�®å\ÇÇ��

2

Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will try to supportUUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.

GNUR�êäqUnixÇ�Çb4XÌ�3�Unix�·¢RÊâ&~ÙÇv*ø:{²è���J°4~u{�u��/�Ç·¢��p�Í�{©GÖÇ©GÇýRÇ,1²Ihå�è{©Gø:Ç��¤�©GÖ�ÄVàÇÕÁ�ªà{�+|ÑÇ1ù1Lisp�äú{@ø:Ç/,Ç�ÇLispÇ�ZÊ/{UnixÇ�,1I0�Ƕô�RØCZLisp*�ø:�ǪÓ�·¢R�A|ÑUUCPÇMIT ChaosnetÇ1ùInternet/fNF�

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 makeit run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants to use it on them.

GNUðÏ{ø)4äqóä����?{68000/16000øï�®åÞÇO�óYJ�®åÞ&GNUäqåu4!;\{�&GNUäqóÍB{�®åÞ{�iÓ*R�É�Jæ�ó�J�®åäqGNU{|u)�

To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the ‘G’ in the word ‘GNU’ when it isthe name of this project.

�ê�½×@Çh GNU�S,1ø{ÖÁ�Ç>² G�Öñ�u�

Why I Must Write GNU���·���UGNU

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it withother 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 withother users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreementor a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial IntelligenceLab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they hadgone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done forme against my will.

·��1���)¬FÕ�*·õ¡�ÇÇ�·Ò��¦ÙÆõ¡YÇÇ�{|¢I0Ç��G=HVACIð~�?nqƢǽ&�Ç&~V3?X¦ÙÆ{&~VI0Ç��·áý~Y«0*u» ·¦ÙÆ&~V{L��·X��òÛeü]�ÇX,Ú {NFÝ�G�,yNF�·ó|Ó��"è?Ó*{�J#��áýY«65ZÙÇX�Õ{q�Çb4/<ª��0tY�ZÕ·óåè¥MX�VêÇO�Y°�{/�òê·{?��

So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to puttogether a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along withoutany software that is not free. I have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal

3

excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.

�ê�ê���Á�&~�®åÇ·.²�½ûeVBø�êõ{���GÇYø·Ò�êÃ�&~:���G ��Ó*�·.² VêAI"è?{Ó*1½MIT��[�FÞ{�=u��·�YGNU�

Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix���GNUR¦Unix/�

Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of Unixseem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without spoilingthem. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many otherpeople to adopt.

UnixX4·®.¥{v*ø:ÇbÇ�X4Ô��Unix{äý�u�åu#h{PÇ?%·.·,1��Unixbè{�u X» Æ�{�¤�Ç�ǦUnix/�{v*ø:R"��õ|V7aÇ�

How GNU Will Be AvailableGNUR1[«0*�Y

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redis-tribute 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 surethat all versions of GNU remain free.

GNUX4Úá�G��Ç|ÑRúï���Zò�YGNUÇb4�[�YVÑXï!�Ç{ò�Y��Ò4�ÇXï����{Û�Y�·æ�âyÄ�Çý{GNUÑ��4��ýDÄ�G�

Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help������õÇ�Êæ�ØÐÏ

I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want tohelp.

·.²�����õÇ�ÊéGNU¡uU?æ�ØÐÏ�

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 withother programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act offriendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangementsnow typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. Thepurchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Natu-rally, many decide that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law

4

often do not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical4 and think thatprogramming is just a way of making money.

�õÇ�Êéø:�G{Û��¡tXÜ�Û��,1&Æ¢ßÍõ{�Çb4Y/�&Æ¢¡ú¦ÙÆÇ�Êÿ�àB�¥ :3��ø{�ø�óÇ�Ê�-,H�G{äý0*Ò4I0Ç�Ö�ó�n{=���äýÞXã�Ç�Ê#�1��#V�éo�G{|��ó�GZ$E���-)ñ �/�Ç�õ|�½�GÍ­��b4�Jf��F{|ó�V�-)ñ ?X�4�Æ¢#zR-þ¢?%���UÇ��X,4�«ß�{0� .�

By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be hos-pitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an example toinspire and a banner to rally5 others to join us in sharing. This can give us a feelingof harmony which is impossible if we use software that is not free. For about half theprogrammers I talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.

/,�UZ&~GNU X4Û�{Ç�Ç·¢,1�Õ�éV��Ç|%$E�F��iÇGNU�*�óÍ|e{)¾Z�Áá�uP¨ÙÆ|��·¢I0{-��Y�É·¢�«&~:���GX�Üz{e�{²·�馷bá,{�ÌÇ�Êu�ÇY4�«��Ã��S{­��U�

How You Can Contribute��[*ñà�

I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money. I’masking individuals for donations of programs and work.

·tó�F�®å��Ûí�åìZý��·tó�FÇ|à���{Ç�Z�Ä�

One consequence6 you can expect if you donate7 machines is that GNU will run onthem at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use systems,approved for use in a residential8 area, and not in need of sophisticated cooling orpower.

��Ï�zt{�*4�*�ØêåìGNUÒ�Í��óÇ¢ÞÁäq��®åa�4qr{Ç,~{ø:Ç�ê�ãóÊ/{Ô#�Ç?%X���ì{¥eÝ�Í÷÷�

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 coordi-

4HVÕÕcynical adj. `%{ÖR-þ¢{�5HVÕÕrally n. ø\ÖL�Ö­ráóÖ+�ÙÄ� vi. vt. ø\ÖL��6HVÕÕconsequence n. �*Ö�*ÖMäÖM®�7HVÕÕdonate vt. vi. í��8HVÕÕresidential adj. Ô#{Ö¦ØÔ��{�

5

nate; the independently-written parts would not work together. But for the particu-lar task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A complete Unix system containshundreds of utility programs, each of which is documented separately. Most inter-face specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor can writea compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make it work properly inplace of the original on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right whenput together. Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, as-sembling these components will be a feasible9 task. (The kernel will require closercommunication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)

·.²��:�õ{Ç�Ê-��GNUà�ñ��{���-�é�Lõj{1øY«���-{I±{Ó*R1N®ÖÕÁUÄ{Ç�¡ãRÃ�ó�åÓ*�b4é��SUnixY1�O{Ó*u�ÇYǯ�iDt��ÇUnixø:Ýij1º�{ÓäÇ�Ç��ÇÑ�\Õ{©l�ýLõj{z=�)ÑúUnix/�uû½�u��*��Ç�UÇ�{|�Uê�ǦUnixÇ�/�{�S¬Ç?&ÇóÆÇ�Äó{Unixø:Þt�Ó*Ç��²YJÓä8ó�å{��Ç¢a��êth�Ó*�¦�Ìñ�YøÝ�ø{¯�ÇRYJ�G�\åu{�ÖR4,q{�à �Xe��·#�ä/ÇR��ÇBn{Ç�·{Lè��0�Ä

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 forwhom building community spirit is as important as making money. I view this as away of enabling dedicated people to devote their full energies to working on GNUby sparing them the need to make a living in another way.

�*·ztêí�{ý�Ç·Ò,1ü~�J|,//�Ý\�{Ó*�~Ç�Ê{)ïoÞ^yX®°Çb4·�I{|a�²OÁLè°��zZß��ø­��·��Y4�«0�Ç&zä�a�°�{|¢RÆ¢{\\°ÅÑ=�t�0GNU{Ó*¥V ½��Dó~ÙÇ0�êÞ�

Why All Computer Users Will Benefit���Ä�{�®å&~VÑRIC

Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free,just like air.10

�`GNU�UqÄÇ�Ç|Ñ�½DÜzÛP{ø:�GÇÒ68í�ø�

This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license. Itmeans that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided.This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art.

9HVÕÕfeasible adj. ,q{Öqz/{Ö,�{�10*VÆÕÕThis 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 atno charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea.

6

YX��?�ø��Ç|��êUnix�,y{D~�ÇÍ?�ø�õø:�Ç{­��DRú�½���u{°ÅRú~u°Ç�{¬��

Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user whoneeds changes in the system will always be free to make them himself, or hire anyavailable programmer or company to make them for him. Users will no longer beat the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the sources and is in soleposition to make changes.

qr{ø:ÍShRØÉ�Ç|��*Ç�[���Ç����ø:{&~VÑ,1�������ÇÝVü~�[��{Ç�ÊÝÚ��ÆqÄYGÓ*�&~VXò�"p�ÍSh{Ç�ÊÝÚ�{!îZó��{����ø:�

Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by encouragingall students to study and improve the system code. Harvard’s computer lab used tohave the policy that no program could be installed on the system if its sources werenot on public display, and upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs.I was very much inspired by this.

/,ó¹Ä�{¦¦óZ��ø:Sh¦DRØÍ��s¸?B{¦ó¢¸�-cL¦�®åAè?��1Yø{�½Ç�*Ç�{ÍShX�Ú 0+ÒX�²Ç�ãtø:ÞÇ?%�ê$EY1�½]{áý�ãêìJÇ���$·ItêiLé��

Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what one isor is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.

!�Çéxp�ø:�GZ��/,1)ÝX,1){,Ý�DRË>ß±�

Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of copies,always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome mechanismsnecessary 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 stationwhere air must be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter ofair may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerableeven if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere tosee if you ever take the mask off are outrageous. It’s better to support the air plantwith a head tax and chuck the masks.

�q{�Ý�F|¢�&~Ç��QÇÝi ó{�,Ç�$����$�{å�uh��Ç|�Q{jÞÃÝVÇ�ýJÇ��QÄÇYÌs�¼­{öÌ�Z�?%��´�)�b��½�Ç|q,Ç¢�÷.ó�Ç���"D~��8í{Ô85°Õ5�áVBR��8í{D~4\®{Çb4�*��r�r��{P�Þ�áÞ{ÁäÇ�R4Ã�}I{Çý&�ê|�8íB\�?%tÿ÷��@ò4å)@�4d!�,Áä4/èò{�BR|>{?!�Á

7

ä4|Ñ�8í{ÍP0��

Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, andas productive. It ought to be as free.

ó\\Ý\I{Ç�é�ÇÇ�Êu�46�á�ø�l{/Ç?%ä��G�Ça�4��{�

Some Easily Rebutted11 Objections to GNU’s Goals�JGNUø)�4ût�&{�0

”Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can’t rely onany support.”

��*Ç�4½D{Ò��|&~ÇÇO��?�øÆ¢RÃ�Üz�b|Ñ��

”You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the support.”

��XzXéÇ�BD1|�Ø�b|ÑÄ�{D~��

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 tobe profitable.12

�*|¢7Ñéoi�qÖ{GNU X4½D{��qÖ{GNUÇ���½DztGNU{|ØqÖ{Ú�a�4i¼{�

We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work andmere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a softwarevendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the vendor will tell you toget lost.

·¢a�,o*ÞKI]t{�Çu�b|ÑZ\�{�su�b|Ñ��V4X��"�GØaÛ{��*�{¯����êõ{|±tÇ��ØaÛR&�ÃÄ7,�

If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to have allthe necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available person to fix yourproblem; you are not at the mercy of any individual. With Unix, the price of sourcesputs this out of consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It isstill possible for there to be no available competent person, but this problem cannotbe blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world’sproblems, only some of them.

11HVÕÕrebut vi. 'RÖÞ'y� vt. 'RÖ&RÖy3�12*VÆÕÕSeveral such companies now exist.

8

�*�{�Ö���b|ÑÇ��{0�4p���{ÍShZÓä�l��Ò�ü~�[,~{|Êu�û{¯�Ö�X��"�[|{!î�UnixÇÙÍSh{$ÂéLõj�Öu�Ñ4X��1�D{�&~GNUÒÌi;\��l�,�IXtw?{| ÇbYǯ�X��Ñ��Y0*�GNUX��û-�Þ{Ä�¯�Ç��4Ù¥{�\I .�

Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding: doingthings for them which they could easily do themselves but don’t know how.

3�Çé�®å�ÃÄ�{~����sÕqÄ�JÆ¢,1��qÄbX��[V){Ó*�

Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding and repairservice. If it is true that users would rather spend money and get a product withservice, they will also be willing to buy the service having got the product free. Theservice companies will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to anyparticular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don’t need the service should be able touse the program without paying for the service.

Yø{qÖ,1�ñH�b�sZ�®qÖ{Ú�uØ��*~�]{Ñ?��êo��bqÖ{�¬ÇÆ¢�RÑ?ó½DÜz�¬�éoqÖ�ØqÖ{Ú�RÌó�ÞZ$Â0Á0 ¿pÖ~�RXò�"\�{Ú��3�Ç·¢¥{�JX��qÖ{|R,1&~Ç� X��qÖ���

”You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you mustcharge for the program to support that.”

�X*�·�ÒX�t�õ|�wÃ�{Ç�ÄÇÄ1�ê|Ñ�·��éÇ�BD��

”It’s no use advertising a program people can get free.”

��|¢,1½Dzt{Ç�*�·4NÃ?B{��

There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to informnumbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be true thatone can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this is really so, abusiness which advertises the service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought tobe successful enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the userswho benefit from the advertising pay for it.

��«X3o*{½D{Ýô�"({�·��,1&�õ�®å&~V�w��GNU{/�b4�·,�]{�k/t�õ�å&~V��*]4YøÇ��  óZ� GNU*�·{�Öa��ËZ�·{D~��Íõ�Y«0*Ç��,�·¥IC{~�b|�ê#a{D~�

9

On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such companiesdon’t succeed, this will show that advertising was not really necessary to spreadGNU. Why is it that free market advocates don’t want to let the free market decidethis?13

��0ÁÇ�*�õ|,���°ztGNUÇ?%YJÚ�²e{XÄÕÒ�Ò�·é�GNU{�B��*~����¦��=�' Xt��=���*ñû½�

”My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a competitiveedge.”

�·{Ú���Û�{v*ø:bÌ�¿pÅ��

GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. Youwill not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be ableto get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefittingmutually14 in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will notlike GNU, but that’s tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU cansave you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.

GNUR&v*ø:,¿p{�­¥úÍø«��RÃ�ê v*ø:{!c¬�Ç�{¿pV�X̧,���ZÆ¢RóÙÇ{�­0 ¿pÇ3�óY��­#�ܼ��*�{�Ö4ñHv*ø:Ç�RXÌõ¡GNUÇb��������*�²e{4ÙÇ�ÖÇGNUR&�½�,/=Hv*ø:{�"�Ö�

I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many manufacturersand users, reducing the cost to each.15

·°l��tGNU{�0ztê�õ��ÛZÇ|b�{|ÑÇY\�êÈ0{D~�

”Don’t programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?”

�wÇ�ÊX-�Æ¢{ �ÅztÃçmÚ�

13*VÆÕÕThe 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 orderingthe from the FSF, it will be unable to do its work. But this does not mean that proprietaryrestrictions are justified to force every user to pay. If a small fraction of all the users order copiesfrom the FSF, that is sufficient to keep the FSF afloat. So we ask users to choose to support us inthis way. Have you done your part?

14HVÕÕmutually adv. #��Ö�#��15*VÆÕÕA group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support maintenance of

the GNU C Compiler.

10

If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a socialcontribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmersdeserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token theydeserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.

�*������Ãç{�Ç�Ò4à�öÌ� �Å,14�«öÌà�Çb��höÌ�ê���&~Ç{Ä*�b4Yø��*Ç�Ê-�� �êä�Õ u{Ç� ztÃçÇ3®�*Æ¢!�YJÇ�{&~Òa�ItÈ��

”Shouldn’t a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”

�wÇ�ÊXa��Æ¢{ �Å�FÃçmÚ�

There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one’sincome, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the meanscustomary in the field of software today are based on destruction.

æ���ÄzݯF!°{Ç|B����[,FÇbY?X?¢ø» u�b4�ó{�Gq�41» u�äú{�

Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructivebecause the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can beused. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program.When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberatedestruction.

/,!�&~VéÇ�{&~u�R&~V{�cä�» uÇO�Y«!�>èêÇ�&~{jÞZ0*�Y>èê|¡,Ç�¥ÜR{$��"�,1ù? !�Ç�{&~ÇÙ�*Ò4�?�» �

The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier isthat, 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 consequencesthat result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong forone to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one’s creativity does notjustify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.

�ÇP{ÚÌX~Y«» u0���{ÆOó�Ç�*�Ç|ÑYø)Ç·¢ÒÌO�#�»  Ä�A|�Y4��]®ÖÝVÇ�)¬F���·Xõ¡�Õ3fås�{�*Ç·XzX��Yø){|4FØ{��Ù���ñ{4Ç-�, �Å¥ÜzÃç?X��ß:-��

”Won’t programmers starve?”

�Ç�ÊXÌ��mÚ�

11

I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manageto get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, asa result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, andstarving. We do something else.

·,12½����|4ú½*Ç�Ê{�·¢h¥{L\I|X,�"5ó}�È�Òuß��b4·¢�XÌht5ó}�È�ÒÇ?��{�Z�·¢,1)ÙÇ{/�

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.

b4�4FØ{I�O�ÇzIê¯V�+u{"÷Õ���G{Ä�YÇÒX,�ß�I��"÷��Üz\\���ÃÄÜ�

The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for themto get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.

Ç�ÊXÌ��{]tÆOó�Æ¢�,1�"�Çß�Ö�X,���óY�õ�

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the mostcommon basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejectedby the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization whichare now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind ofbusiness.

!� ó?:4�Gq�{��äú��Ä1Ä�!Ê({äú4O�Ç,1Qu!L{²�¼C��*Çú¢�ÇÝú>DVáýÇ�Gq�ÒÌÝ#tÙÇ{�óX�D{��äú�Þ��[�ÖÑ�4�õ«X3{��o*�

Probably programming will not be as lucrative16 on the new basis as it is now. Butthat is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice thatsales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, thatwould not be an injustice either. (In practice they would still make considerablymore than that.)

óc{äú�Þ�Ç,�X6�óYø�¼,C�b4�X4'é#�{®����|��=HÊ�ó{^y4X\®{��*Ç�Ê�4Yø{�Ç��X4X\®{�Ã"�ÞÆ¢zt{2½Íõ�Ä

”Don’t people have a right to control how their creativity is used?”

16HVÕÕlucrative adj. �¼,C{Öܼ{�

12

�p|¢��YÅ;��[&~��{ �ÅmÚ�

”Control over the use of one’s ideas” really constitutes control over other people’slives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.”

�;�|�[&~��{.��"�èÄê;�|¢{ÙÖ?%/�YÌ&Æ¢{ÙÍ�h�

People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully (such aslawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual property. The kinds ofsupposed intellectual property rights that the government recognizes were createdby specific acts of legislation for specific purposes.

�ûÏÄ,�#�Y¯�{|¢Ã��F�Ä�Ç��¦èu{�#�Y�u��,{È«Ä¢�#�YÑ4�ê�Oø{��½{Á�Ç��{�

For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to disclosethe details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society rather than to helpinventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for a patent was short comparedwith the rate of advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue onlyamong manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are smallcompared with setting up production, the patents often do not do much harm. Theydo not obstruct most individuals who use patented products.

¾�ÇÛ¼�Ý4�êó¹�ÒVÚ ���Ò{û� OÁ{�Ç{ø{Í�¼�öÌ X4�ÒV�ó�Ç�SÇ�ÇÛ¼�Ô#{×±Ï#é��b�·qÕ{¤Ý4áö{���Û¼��4��Û�-{¯�ÇéÆ¢u��,NF{D~¦���¬#�4iè{ÇÛ¼��Ôõ{3ÿ�Æ¢XÌ4�Ç|&~Û¼�¬�

The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors frequently copiedother authors at length in works of non-fiction. This practice was useful, and is theonly way many authors’ works have survived even in part. The copyright systemwas created expressly for the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain forwhich it was invented–books, which could be copied economically only on a printingpress–it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read thebooks.

ôSX?óÇY{'Çh�:B�¡{*V²�Lã�Z~ÙÆ*V{*¬�Y«*�4�H{Ç?%��/,Y«0*�õ*V{*¬bz1\I�â?�u�ÇYø:{OÁÌ�4�êó¹ *ÙÄ�ó�ÒÇY{åO—V÷�­ÇV÷��ó\m¢úLÞ²����—Ç����3ÿÇ?%XÌ���[Ç|ÝÖYJV÷�

All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society because it was

13

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 grantingsuch license? What kind of act are we licensing a person to do?

Ä�{�#�Y��4úöÌ�,{�,ÇO�L�Ñ��ÇÝéÝFÇ�,�#�YérÇöÌ�¼�b4óì«<Y�Ç·¢XzX¯Õ·¢�,Yø{�,]{4ÍP{ mÚ·¢,1�,�Ç|)��ø{/Ú

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 createa situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a wholeboth materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless ofwhether the law enables him to.

��Ç�{<YZ�º#�V÷{<Y�iL{X3�/"4zt�ÇÇ�!;\{0�Ò4,±�{|�° ó�PÇ/"4�ÇÇ�ÝiÇ�ÍShZX3{ø)ShÇ/"4Ç�X4~uÝÖZ>�{Ç�ó�åÒ�ê�«<YÇ�Çp���uÇY{|,Ô�Z°�Ü0ÁÚ3êrÇöÌÖY«<Y��Ç|Xa�Yø)ÃX�F4dã��

”Competition makes things get done better.”

�¿p&/<)zÍP��

The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourageeveryone 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 runnersforget why the reward is offered and become intent on winning, no matter how, theymay find other strategies–such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get intoa fist fight, they will all finish late.

¿p{�Ǿ�4­sÕ/,X¹Ü�VÇ·¢ó¹�Ç|szÍO�"�ÞýýÌBÒ41Y«0*ä*{ÇÇ4�H{Öb4Ç{p�VFØ�"÷Ç�[��Ñ�H��*­sV��êX¹{ø{ÇÃX�øÇÆ¢RItc{|QÈ��ÇÔâÙÆ{­sV��*­sVò�ê^>L4ÇÆ¢ÑRMÔtHª�{�/�

Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a fist fight. Sadto say, the only referee we’ve got does not seem to object to fights; he just regulatesthem (”For every ten yards you run, you are allowed one kick.”). He really oughtto break them up, and penalize runners for even trying to fight.

�G{��Z�·ówBÞ¦ó�­¥K%{­sV���[�/�"C{4Ç

14

·¢��{®`|?X¢�pÌÖÆ��4!�Æ¢Ã��s�hÇ�Ò,1��l��Ä�Æ]{a�I Æ¢Ç?%ÿ�­sV�Y��4�K%{èC�

”Won’t everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?”

���²�¼C{�Þ4X4Ä�{|ÑÌ*��ÇÚ�

Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive. Pro-gramming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the people whoare best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians who keep at it eventhough they have no hope of making a living that way.

"�ÞÇ�õ|ó���[²��O{<Y��Ì�UÇ���UÇ�éìJ|ä�X,�á{áZÅÇ/�YJ|Ñ°�$w��Xè{Û�Q��Ѽ �Q� *�¥¦����[æ�1$ê�

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 thatthey will.

b4Yǯ�Ǧ�²�ú¯tÇ"�Þ?Xn\�ó{<Y��Ç�Ê�^y{<YXÌ>�Ç�4#èê�Ä1th{¯�4ÇB�èê¤Ì�|�ÇmÚ·{²è4Æ¢Ì{�

For more than ten years, many of the world’s best programmers worked at theArtificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had anywhereelse. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and appreciation, forexample. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.

ó�õ#{�-°Ç�õ-�Þ!P{Ç�Êó|Ó��"è?Ó*e�ü�Æ¢óÙÇ�0�zt{èzõ{^y�Æ¢Rzt�õ¦B�Ã�{ÃçÕ��Ç�¹Z�P� �{,Çßw�UÇ �{ýüý4Ãç�

Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting work fora lot of money.

�*�åÌ,/3ø�Ub^yvõ{Ó*Æ¢h¥{Lõj|̬V�

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but ifgiven a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demandit. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, butthey do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

15

/",Ò|¢RÌ�õ«¦c�Ã�{ÆOV�ÇÖb4�*3��åÌßL�{�ÇÆ¢ÒÌ-�ZêFÇ��^{å覰^{#�äezÌ��JÇb4�*°^{ú¢�{��^{ÒXÌäez����

”We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stophelping our neighbors, we have to obey.”

�·¢½#���Ç�Ê��*Æ¢�F·¢*�Ðϱ�{|Ç·¢XzXq,��

You’re never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. Remember:millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!

�¤���½tXzXq,Y«�F��ÔÕ7,�D�ºy�ÓÓ/Ç�ûX�à�I�¼

”Programmers need to make a living somehow.”

������

In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that programmerscould make a living without selling the right to use a program. This way is customarynow because it brings programmers and businessmen the most money, not becauseit is the only way to make a living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to findthem. Here are a number of examples.

,Ú��ÇY4]{�l ÇøêñH�G{&~YÇ�ʤ��õÙÇ{0�,1~uê��Ä1ñH�G&~Y{0*YøÊ(4O�Ç�Ç�Ê¢ZÛ|¢Qu!õ{BCÇ :Ç4��{ê0*�ItÙÇ{ê0*4;\{/�*�.I{��Y���J¾��

A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of operatingsystems onto the new hardware.

��Û �c{�®å�RÌ=�ý�²v*ø:#�tc{mGÞ�

The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also employprogrammers.

�êw�s¦Ç�sZ�b|ÑqÖ=H{����ü~Ç�Ê�

People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for donationsfrom satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. I have met people who arealready working this way successfully.

16

�c.�{|,11���G{o*�YcÇ�Ç�Fw?{&~VØíÏÇÝVñH�su�bqÖ�·.²D,1Y«0*ÄÕ²e{|�

Users with related needs can form users’ groups, and pay dues. A group wouldcontract with programming companies to write programs that the group’s memberswould like to use.

�#£�F{&~V,1ÄÁ~�L�Ç?%ËZ#a{��~�L�a��¦�GÚ�ü¾\3u�UL�ÄÊõ¡&~{Ç��

All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:

Ä�«¡{ �Ñ,1��G{u|ÑÕ

Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as asoftware tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF17 to spend onsoftware development.

"÷�Çéo�®å{|Ñ��b��®å$Â{ºI�x*��G{�u�²ÇbÉ6NSFYø{S®åè�q�G ��

But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, hecan 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 acredit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.

b4�*éo�®å{|é�G ��Äà�ÇÆÒ,1zt�½{{GR>�Æ,1 íÏ{1øÈ/�ÇÆÌæ��ê&~ÆÄíÏ1ø{Ä*�Æ�zt{{GR>�à�LB��tÆa�{�G{���

The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weightedaccording to the amount they will be taxed on.

�{{G,1��{|=¦û½�õè��{|{�{jÞu½�

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 forthemselves.

17HVÕÕNSFÕ National Science Foundation )�)¦ä�

17

�*Õ

• �®å~�öL|Ñ�G ��

• YÇöLû½����ÿ/{|Ñ�

• ó?��{í�~óý�Ç1øÞ{~�,1��*ñ �

In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, wherenobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free todevote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending thenecessary 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 aliving from programming.

ó{�{w4ÞÇ&Ç�½D�45½�b�{-���ê�ZÇó�°��|XzXÓ*ê�|¢R���=ü���õ¡{Ó*¥Ç���UÇ�Ç�ÇhÏ�~�ÇB�)�J��{Ó*Ç��Á�Ç�,ÌFÇ�®åì|Zh�æÂ���~�UÇ�uê{���

We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole society must dofor its actual productivity, but only a little of this has translated itself into leisure forworkers because much nonproductive activity is required to accompany productiveactivity. The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles againstcompetition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the area of softwareproduction. We must do this, in order for technical gains in productivity to translateinto less work for us.

·¢.²ôL�>èêrÇöÌHt"��GÄ�{�ÄÞÇb4��ôè{�\IݦÄ�ÄV{���-O���Å{ÙÄ�4ʱøNÃ�Å{ÙÄ�Ì�{ÆOó��äÌBZ3þÅ�{pÌ��ê¿p����GRó�G�¬�­�ôL�>èY«�Z��ê²°�bQu{°�Gݦķ¢Íè{Ó*Ç·¢��Yø)�

18