From: tmcwill@ukelele.GCR.COM (Thomas McWilliams) Subject: Re: What would people think of binary-only software on Linux? Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 22:30:40 GMT
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
> If someone developed applications or drivers for Linux and sold them
> in binary-only form, what would the reaction be?
>
> --Tim Smith
>
No, no, no. This is completely against the goals of the Free Software
movement. Binary only distributions take away our freedom. There is
no life in a binary. Life and growth spring from the source code.
There would be no Linux without the hundreds who have contributed
source to utilities, compilers, libraries, device drivers. Please
take your binaries elsewhere.
If you feel like contributing to Linux but you are legally unable
to release your source, do the next best thing. Provide a detailed
textual description of what the device driver must do. Provide
documentation and specifications which will allow someone else to
write a truly free driver. The hardest part about writing a device
driver is gathering the documentation and understanding what must
be done. The coding itself then becomes almost trivial. Yes, for
you to do this would be real contribution. Don't even think about
binaries unless you provide full source code under the GPL.
Below you will find the words of Richard Stallman which appeared
in gnu.misc.discuss on Jan. 19, 1993. He discusses the meaning
of free software. Muse on this.
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Subject: Copyleft
Copyleft vs Public Domain
Some people ask why the FSF uses copyleft (the General Public
License or GPL) to specify conditions for copying GNU software.
Why not just put the software in the public domain?
The purpose of the GNU project is to give users in general the
freedom to use software in many ways. We want them to be free
to study and change programs, and to cooperate with each other
by sharing programs. This is what we mean by "free software".
The GPL achieves this better than the public domain, because
(1) it prevents the freedom from being stripped off when the
program is distributed, and (2) it takes away the incentive to
be uncooperative by refusing to share an improvement.
Copyleft does prevent certain people from doing what they would
like to do. Those who would like to take GNU software, make
some changes, and call the result their property are not free
to do so. We think this is a good thing.
To understand why, first note that it is not possible for
society to permit "all possible freedom," because some freedoms
are incompatible with others. This is often stated as, "Your
freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins."
We always resolve the conflicts between freedoms by
prioritizing them. For example, the quotation above implicitly
assumes that the freedom not to be punched is more important
than the freedom to swing a fist.
There is more than one way to apply a concept such as "free" to
the area of software, because there are different choices of
priority. The question is not, which is the true meaning of
"free software", but rather, which of the valid meanings is
best.
The GNU project is based on the idea that the freedom to decide
your own actions with the programs you use--for example,
whether to copy them or change them--is more important than
occasional power over other people's actions.
Making a program proprietary means interfering with the
important freedoms--other people's freedom to study, share and
change the program. This is the software analogue of swinging
the fist through a user's face. Preventing this may bother
those who want to swing the fist. But don't sympathize too
much; you might be one of the users who would get it in the
face.
If not for the GPL, most users of our software would not have
the freedom to redistribute and change it. That is not just
speculation; the examples of X Windows, TeX, and Berkeley's
Unix extensions show that most users of these programs have
only proprietary versions and do not have the freedom to share
or change them. The first authors of these programs did not
themselves take away those freedoms, but did not defend them
either. Where that path leads was clear when the GNU project
was started, and therefore we chose another path.
The GPL also encourages companies which make improved versions
to return their improvements for inclusion in the standard
version. If not for this, GCC and Emacs would not be nearly as
good as they are.
But is this enough justification? That is a fundamental
philosophical question. Some people believe it wrong to place
any restrictions on anyone, ever--even restrictions against
making any other restrictions. Those readers who believe in
pacifism and condemn use of force even to protect innocent
victims would naturally disagree with our approach.
That is not the philosophy of the GNU project, however. We are
not pacifists, and being passive and never saying "No" to
anyone is not our goal. Our aim is positive--to give the users
the freedom to cooperate, which is distinguished from the
freedom to obstruct. That has been the goal ever since the
beginning.
If we put our software in the public domain, then we would have
a great excuse to make. We could say, "Don't blame us if you
have no freedom to share and change this program--it was that
other guy who redistributed it with a nondisclosure license and
no source." But we want to succeed in giving users that
freedom, not prepare excuses for failure. We use the GPL
because it succeeds.
----Richard Stallman