1Copyright (C) 1985, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 3 4 Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies 5of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and 6permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the 7recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this 8notice. 9 10 Modified versions may not be made. 11 12The GNU Manifesto 13***************** 14 15 The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard 16 Stallman at the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for 17 participation and support. For the first few years, it was 18 updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it 19 seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it. 20 21 Since that time, we have learned about certain common 22 misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. 23 Footnotes added in 1993 help clarify these points. 24 25 For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, 26 please see www.gnu.org. For software tasks to work on, see 27 http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist. For other ways 28 to contribute, see http://www.gnu.org/help. 29 30What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix! 31============================ 32 33 GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete 34Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it 35away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers are 36helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are 37greatly needed. 38 39 So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor 40commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, 41a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is 42nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled 43itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but 44many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and 45compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system 46suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text 47formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, 48portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable 49Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other 50things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, 51everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more. 52 53 GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to 54Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our 55experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to 56have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, 57file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and 58perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several 59Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C 60and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will 61try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for 62communication. 63 64 GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with 65virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run 66on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left 67to someone who wants to use it on them. 68 69 To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word 70`GNU' when it is the name of this project. 71 72Why I Must Write GNU 73==================== 74 75 I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I 76must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to 77divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share 78with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this 79way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a 80software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial 81Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, 82but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an 83institution where such things are done for me against my will. 84 85 So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have 86decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I 87will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I 88have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent 89me from giving GNU away. 90 91Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix 92==================================== 93 94 Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential 95features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what 96Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix 97would be convenient for many other people to adopt. 98 99How GNU Will Be Available 100========================= 101 102 GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to 103modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to 104restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary 105modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all 106versions of GNU remain free. 107 108Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help 109======================================= 110 111 I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and 112want to help. 113 114 Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system 115software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them 116to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel 117as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the 118sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used 119essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The 120purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the 121law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But 122those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. 123They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making 124money. 125 126 By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can 127be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as 128an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in 129sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if 130we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I 131talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace. 132 133How You Can Contribute 134====================== 135 136 I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and 137money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work. 138 139 One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU 140will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, 141ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not 142in need of sophisticated cooling or power. 143 144 I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time 145work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would 146be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not 147work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this 148problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility 149programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface 150specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor 151can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make 152it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these 153utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy 154to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will 155be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and 156will be worked on by a small, tight group.) 157 158 If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full 159or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but 160I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as 161important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated 162people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them 163the need to make a living in another way. 164 165Why All Computer Users Will Benefit 166=================================== 167 168 Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system 169software free, just like air.(2) 170 171 This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix 172license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming 173effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the 174state of the art. 175 176 Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, 177a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them 178himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for 179him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company 180which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. 181 182 Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment 183by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. 184Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be 185installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and 186upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very 187much inspired by this. 188 189 Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software 190and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. 191 192 Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including 193licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through 194the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, 195which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can 196force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must 197be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air 198may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is 199intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the 200TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are 201outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and 202chuck the masks. 203 204 Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as 205breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free. 206 207Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals 208============================================== 209 210 "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't 211 rely on any support." 212 213 "You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the 214 support." 215 216 If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free 217without service, a company to provide just service to people who have 218obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(3) 219 220 We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming 221work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on 222from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough 223people, the vendor will tell you to get lost. 224 225 If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way 226is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any 227available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any 228individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of 229consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is 230still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this 231problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not 232eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them. 233 234 Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need 235handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do 236themselves but don't know how. 237 238 Such services could be provided by companies that sell just 239hand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather 240spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing 241to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies 242will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any 243particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service 244should be able to use the program without paying for the service. 245 246 "You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must 247 charge for the program to support that." 248 249 "It's no use advertising a program people can get free." 250 251 There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be 252used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But 253it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with 254advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the 255service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful 256enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users 257who benefit from the advertising pay for it. 258 259 On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and 260such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not 261really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates 262don't want to let the free market decide this?(4) 263 264 "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a 265 competitive edge." 266 267 GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of 268competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but 269neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and 270they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this 271one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not 272like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, 273GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of 274selling operating systems. 275 276 I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many 277manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(5) 278 279 "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" 280 281 If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. 282Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society 283is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for 284creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be 285punished if they restrict the use of these programs. 286 287 "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his 288 creativity?" 289 290 There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to 291maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are 292destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today 293are based on destruction. 294 295 Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of 296it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the 297ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth 298that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate 299choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. 300 301 The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to 302become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become 303poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, 304the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if 305everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one 306to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity 307does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that 308creativity. 309 310 "Won't programmers starve?" 311 312 I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us 313cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making 314faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives 315standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something 316else. 317 318 But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's 319implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers 320cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. 321 322 The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be 323possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as 324now. 325 326 Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. 327It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it 328were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would 329move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. 330There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business. 331 332 Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it 333is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not 334considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they 335now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice 336either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than 337that.) 338 339 "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is 340 used?" 341 342 "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over 343other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more 344difficult. 345 346 People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(6) 347carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to 348intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property 349rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of 350legislation for specific purposes. 351 352 For example, the patent system was established to encourage 353inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was 354to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life 355span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of 356advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among 357manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are 358small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do 359much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented 360products. 361 362 The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors 363frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This 364practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have 365survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for 366the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was 367invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing 368press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals 369who read the books. 370 371 All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society 372because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole 373would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we 374have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind 375of act are we licensing a person to do? 376 377 The case of programs today is very different from that of books a 378hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is 379from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source 380code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is 381used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in 382which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole 383both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so 384regardless of whether the law enables him to. 385 386 "Competition makes things get done better." 387 388 The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we 389encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this 390way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it 391always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered 392and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other 393strategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into 394a fist fight, they will all finish late. 395 396 Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners 397in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem 398to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you 399run, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, and 400penalize runners for even trying to fight. 401 402 "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?" 403 404 Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary 405incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some 406people, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of 407professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of 408making a living that way. 409 410 But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate 411to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become 412less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced 413monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will. 414 415 For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked 416at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could 417have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: 418fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a 419reward in itself. 420 421 Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same 422interesting work for a lot of money. 423 424 What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other 425than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they 426will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly 427in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly 428if the high-paying ones are banned. 429 430 "We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop 431 helping our neighbors, we have to obey." 432 433 You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. 434Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute! 435 436 "Programmers need to make a living somehow." 437 438 In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways 439that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a 440program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and 441businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a 442living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here 443are a number of examples. 444 445 A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of 446operating systems onto the new hardware. 447 448 The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could 449also employ programmers. 450 451 People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware(7), asking 452for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. 453I have met people who are already working this way successfully. 454 455 Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A 456group would contract with programming companies to write programs that 457the group's members would like to use. 458 459 All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: 460 461 Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the 462 price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency 463 like the NSF to spend on software development. 464 465 But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development 466 himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to 467 the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to 468 use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any 469 amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay. 470 471 The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the 472 tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on. 473 474 The consequences: 475 476 * The computer-using community supports software development. 477 478 * This community decides what level of support is needed. 479 480 * Users who care which projects their share is spent on can 481 choose this for themselves. 482 483 In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the 484post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to 485make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities 486that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten 487hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, 488robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be 489able to make a living from programming. 490 491 We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole 492society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this 493has translated itself into leisure for workers because much 494nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity. 495The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against 496competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the 497area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical 498gains in productivity to translate into less work for us. 499 500 ---------- Footnotes ---------- 501 502 (1) The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody 503would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But the 504words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying 505that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge. 506That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the 507possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a 508profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between 509"free" in the sense of freedom and "free" in the sense of price. Free 510software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and 511change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to 512obtain copies--and if the funds help support improving the software, so 513much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy 514has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it. 515 516 (2) This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between 517the two different meanings of "free". The statement as it stands is 518not false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your 519friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea. 520 521 (3) Several such companies now exist. 522 523 (4) The Free Software Foundation raised most of its funds for 10 524years from a distribution service, although it is a charity rather 525than a company. 526 527 (5) A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to 528support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler. 529 530 (6) In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak 531of "the issue" of "intellectual property". That term is obviously 532biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together various 533disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I urge 534people to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest it 535lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be 536clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately. 537See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation 538of how this term spreads confusion and bias. 539 540 (7) Subsequently we have learned to distinguish between "free 541software" and "freeware". The term "freeware" means software you are 542free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and change 543the source code, so most of it is not free software. See 544http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more 545explanation. 546