SCN: FSM

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes  

==================  


by Richard Stallman, president, Free Software Foundation  

(Salon)---In the Free Software Movement, from which "open 
source" split off in 1998, we believe computer users should have 
the freedom to change and redistribute the software that they use. 
Universities should encourage free software for the sake of 
advancing human knowledge, just as they encourage scientists 
and scholars to publish their work. Alas, many universities have a 
grasping and self-serving approach to software. Free software 
developers have been dealing with this for almost 20 years.   

When I started developing the GNU operating system in 1984, my 
first step was to quit my job at MIT. I did this specifically so that the 
MIT licensing office would be unable to interfere with releasing 
GNU as free software. The "free" in free software refers to 
freedom: It means users have the freedom to run, modify and 
redistribute the software. I had planned an approach for licensing 
the programs in GNU that ensures that all modified versions must 
be free software as well, an approach that developed into the GNU 
General Public License (GNU GPL), and I did not want to have to 
get approval from MIT before using it.   

(A modified version of GNU is used on millions of computers, but 
the users often are not aware of this, because the whole system is 
widely confused with its kernel program, whose name is "Linux.")   

Over the years, university affiliates have often come to the Free 
Software Foundation for advice on how to cope with administrators 
who see software only as something to sell. One good method, 
applicable even for specifically funded projects, is to base your 
work on an existing program that was released under the GNU 
GPL. Then you can tell the administrators, "We're not allowed to 
release the modified version except under the GNU GPL -- any 
other way would be copyright infringement." After the dollar signs 
fade from their eyes, they will usually consent to releasing it as 
free software.   

You can also ask your funding sponsor for help. When a group at 
NYU developed the GNU Ada Compiler, with funding from the U.S. 
Air Force, the contract explicitly called for donating the resulting 
code to the Free Software Foundation. Work out the arrangement 
with the sponsor first, then politely show the university 
administration that it is not open to renegotiation. They will most 
likely go along.  

Whatever you do, raise the issue early -- certainly before the 
program is half finished. At this point, the university still needs you, 
so you can play hardball: Tell the administration you will finish the 
program, make it usable, if they have agreed in writing to make it 
free software (and agreed to your choice of free software license). 
Otherwise you will work on it only enough to write a paper about it, 
and never make a version good enough to release. When the 
administrators know their choice is to have a free software 
package that brings credit to the university or nothing at all, they 
will usually chose the former.   

Not all universities have grasping policies. The University of Texas 
has a policy that, by default, all software developed there is 
released as free software under the GNU General Public License. 
By developing faculty support first, you may be able to obtain such 
a policy at your university. Present the issue as one of principle: 
Does the university have a mission to advance human knowledge, 
or does it exist purely for its own survival?   

To make these methods succeed, it helps to have determination 
and adopt an ethical perspective, as we do in the Free Software 
Movement. To treat the public ethically, the software should be 
free -- as in freedom -- for the public. Make it clear you will not 
settle for a "balanced" solution of "'free' only in price, restricted to 
academic use only."   

If you hold the "open source" view that allowing others to share 
and change software is just an expedient, a way to make software 
powerful and reliable, you may find it hard to resist a university 
administrator's argument that "we could make it even more 
powerful and reliable with all the money we can get." This may or 
may not come true in the end, but it is hard to disprove in advance. 
 
But when you recognize that free software respects the users' 
freedom, while non-free software negates it, then making sure your 
software is free is a matter of defending freedom for all of society. 
Nothing strengthens your resolve like knowing that the 
community's freedom depends, in that instance, on you.   


Copyright 2002 Salon.com





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *