The GNU Project Logo
Beforehand, I need to make clear I used an online pdf version of the manifesto, therefore I will not be citing pages from the NMR. I apologize if this inconveniences anything for anyone. The link I used is here. (I apologize, the link is now down, but you can access it online at manybooks.net)
The GNU Manifesto was first written in 1985 by Richard Stallman and published in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools as an attempt to gain participation and support by others in the computer programming community to develop the project and call more attention for the free software movement.
GNU, standing for Gnu’s Not Unix, was a Unix compatible software system that Stallman worked on to provide software for free for every user. The Manifesto describes what technology was being used to create the system and what was still needed to further development—including tools and technology, monetary funding outside sources, and programmers willing to contribute time and skills (2). Throughout the Manifesto, Stallman heads topics and questions and answers how GNU is a viable answer to social, ethical and political problems with the capitalist structured software systems of the time. Stallman was concerned with the restricted access users of software were enforced with—the numerous license agreements and inability to manipulate codes or share the software with others name a few of his concerns. “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 with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the law” (2-3). Throughout the article, Stallman addresses common concerns with GNU such as “programmers need to make a living somehow.” Stallman offers reasoning how GNU will advance software and programmers-users relationship (though he does note that the system is not perfect).
I found the GNU Manifesto a very interesting read, particularly the portion that covered copyright laws and how programmers will continue the work because they love it, not just for monetary purposes. I related it to my own life and digital artwork, which was a world I used to be greatly immersed in. Artists would share Photoshop brushes and textures online for others to use, and the community itself is huge—note also the work a majority of the time by those who create for fun was not money based. I associate Stallman’s programmers to that personal reference. I also find the idea of a free software system a good idea (after doing some Googling, I discovered Linux is an extension of the GNU project), because how often have you bought a game or program and had to click through the “terms of agreement,” or input a serial number to prove you are the only holder? A lot, and really why are program such as the Adobe studio so expensive? It is no wonder many people torrent software illegally. The computer business is a cash cow for big companies, but I found Stallman’s reasoning for a “free” system a better liberal view.
1. Do you think a free software system would ever be the norm or majority, or are the Big Name Corporations always going to have the upper hand?
2. Have you ever been tempted to download or borrow software before? What were your reasons?
3. Where in the Manifesto can you see Stallman’s philosophical ideals? Do you agree or disagree with them, and why?
Posts
In response to question 3: In the Manifesto, I see quite a few instances where Richard Stallman’s philosophical ideals are expressed. Throughout his manifesto and description of the GNU, Stallman advocates the importance of the “copyleft” system. This allows for an author to copyright a work, but “add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program’s code” (NMR 544). This is what Stallman seemed to be the biggest proponent of and he stresses how much users will benefit from free software through “copyleft”. Stallman’s ideals are also conveyed with each rebuttal to the bold statements. In these, Stallman again articulates that everyone can benefit from free software, that the competition created from capitalism isn’t necessarily good, and that there doesn’t need to be money incentives for programmers (NMR 547-549). As much as I like Stallman’s ideals, I find them a bit glamorized. It would be great if “copyleft” caught on for all software so people could modify and redistribute them and I think it would be beneficial to everyone. However, I disagree that competition is a paradigm similar to a race, because I believe that competition does lead to innovation and “things getting done better” (NMR 549). Also, I could agree that there’d still be people wanting to program if there were no money incentives, however I don’t think programming would be improved at as fast of a rate if there were competition and money incentives. Nonetheless, Stallman brought up some interesting points and liberal ideals, especially with “copyleft”, throughout his manifesto.
ReplyDeleteAlso in response to question 3: Stallman doesn’t exactly hinder in his choice to reveal his philosophical ideals. Specifically in the New Media Reader, page 546, “This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use software that is not for free.” This is one example of many in which Stallman imposes his philosophical ideas in order to “explain” his vision, but more specifically in order to gain donations of the people, money, and machines that he needs for his vision to occur. At times, this can seem somewhat ironic. He is making a huge claim that his software will not cost anyone anything, yet in order for this software to be made he needs people to volunteer their time, and others to actually pay for software that they are supposed to use for free. I don’t necessarily agree with Stallman. Maybe it’s in response to what I’ve been exposed to in my life, but I feel that the Big Name Corporations will always have the upper hand-they have the most control over the money, and a credit that will have more people trust them than other companies, especially free ones. I think that Stallman has an interesting idea, but it seems rather Socialist in it’s approach.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the second question, yes i have been tempted to download or borrow software. My reasoning has varied from easier access, or cheaper, or pure laziness. Each time i considered it i never looked passed my own selfish reasons to consider the artist original publication and their own hard work placed within their music, productions, etc. I dont think that all software should be free software. Copyrights, term of agreements were created to help structure the creations of producers so that consumers or other producers could not claim it or steal it is their own. I tend to have a non-liberal outlook when it comes to things such as this. Money will always prevail and that has a big hand in terms of copyright.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second question, I as well have been tempted to download or borrow software. My most prevalent "borrows" are music because of the price of itunes songs being $1.29 as opposed to the $.99 they used to be. I realize that what I am doing is technically stealing from the artists, but that is never my intention when downloading music off of the internet. I tend to justify my infrequent use of borrowing music to the fact that I will probably only listen to the song a few times, and that the artists are making enough money through iTunes even though this is a skewed and unfair reason for me to take music off of the internet. I think that copyright and terms of agreement like Rachel said are important and necessary parts of any business because like always, the final goal is to make the most money, and without a copyright, that is impossible. I know that by downloading music I am infringing the copyright laws, but the frequency that I download music definitely is less than the amount of music that I purchase from iTunes, justifying my borrowing even more (for myself at least).
ReplyDelete