来自当知百科
跳转到: 导航搜索

  “GNU 宣言”一文乃是由 Richard Stallman 在 GNU计划刚开始进行时所撰写,以争取其它人的加入及支持。在刚开始的几年,随着计划的发展,本文有些许的修订,但是现在看来最好保持目前最多人所看过的版本而不再做修订。

  从那时起,我们慢慢熟悉不同的用字可以避免某些特定的误解。在1993年所增加的注解可以澄清这些疑点。

  想获知 GNU 软件的最新动态,请参考最新版的 GNU's Bulletin。这份列表因为太长,所以不在此引用。

  什么是GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!

  GNU,Gnu's Not Unix 的缩写,是我正在写的一个与 UNIX兼容的软件系统,目的在于我能够自由的把此系统给想要用它的人。(1)有一些自愿者在给予我帮助。我们非常的需要(希望)您也能够贡献时间、金钱、程序或者是设备来参加此计划。

  到目前为止我们已经有了一个利用 Lisp 编写的Emacs文本编辑器,一个原码级的调试器,一个与 yacc兼容的语法分析器,一个连接器,和大概 35 个应用程序。有一个 shell(命令解释器)已经接近完成。一个新的、具可移植性的、有优化功能的C编译器已经可以自我编译,并应可以在今年发布。还有一个初具规模的内核但是需要更多的特性以模拟UNIX。当内核和编译器工作完成後,我们就能够发布一个适合软件开发的 GNU 系统。我们会使用 TeX作我们的文本编辑器,但是也正在编写一个 nroff。我们也会用免费的、具可移植性的 X 视窗系统。之後我们会加一个可移植的Common Lisp、一个 Empire 游戏、一个电子表格软件、和其他各式各样的东西,以及在线的文档。我们希望最後能提供普通UNIX 系统所能提供的每一件有用的东西,甚至还要更多。

  GNU 将能够执行 Unix 的程序,但是不会和 Unix完全一样。我们会根据我们在其它操作系统上的经验来改进所有可以增加便利性的地方。特别是我们计划拥有支持更长文件名、文件版本号、一个不怕死机的文件系统,或许还要有自动文件名补全、与终端机无关的显示支持、可能最後还要有一个基于Lisp的视窗系统,以使好几个Lisp 程序和普通的 Unix 程序能共享同一屏幕。C 和 Lisp 都将成为系统的程序语言。我们会设法支持 UUCP,MITChaosnet,及 Internet 的通讯协议。

  GNU 最初的目标是在有虚拟内存的 68000/16000 系列机器上开发,因为这样的环境是最容易开发程序来实现 GNU的运行。剩下来让 GNU 能在其它较小的机器上运行的工作,将会留给那些希望能在这些机器上使用的人。

  我为什么一定要写GNU

  我认为:如果我喜欢一个程序的话,那我就应该分享给其他喜欢这个程序的人。这句话是我的金科玉律。软件商想各个击破用户,使他们同意不把软件和他人分享。我拒绝以这种方式破坏用户的团结。我的良心使我不会签下一个不开放的合约或是软件授权合约。有好几年我一直在MIT AI 实验室对抗这种趋势与冷漠,但是最后事情糟糕到:我没办法在一个处理事情的方法与我的意愿相违的机构呆下去。

  为了我能继续使用电脑而不感到羞愧,我决定要收集足够数量的自由软件以使我能够不使用那些没有自由的软件。我离开 AI实验室为的就是不给 MIT 有任何法律上的借口来阻止我把 GNU 送给其他人。

  为了避免令人不悦的混淆,请各位提到此计划的名字‘GNU’时务必要把‘G’的音发出来。

  为什么GNU将会和UNIX兼容

  Unix并不是我理想的系统,但是它也不太差。Unix 基本的特性看来似乎是挺不错的,而且我想我能够在不牺牲原有特性之下加进Unix 缺少的东西。况且一个和 Unix 兼容的系统也比较容易让较多的人接受。

  如何获取GNU

  GNU不是公共的,毫无约束的软件(public domain)。我们将会允许每一个人修改及传播GNU,但是绝不允许传播者对他传播的程序再加进其他的限制。也就是说,不允许将修改後的程序据为己有。我希望能确保 GNU所有的版本都能保持自由。

GNU宣言原文

  The GNU Manifesto

  Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman

  (Copying permission notice at the end.)

  What's GNU?  Gnu's Not Unix!

  GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for thecomplete

  Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I cangive it

  away free to everyone who can use it.  Several othervolunteers are helping

  me.  Contributions of time, money, programs and equipmentare greatly

  needed.

  So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editorcommands,

  a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, alinker, and

  around 35 utilities.  A shell (command interpreter) isnearly completed.  A

  new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may bereleased

  ^^^^^^?

  this year.  An initial kernel exists but many more featuresare needed to

  emulate Unix.  When the kernel and compiler are finished, itwill be

  possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for programdevelopment.  We

  ^^^^^

  will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is beingworked on.  We

  will use the free, portable X window system as well.  Afterthis we will

  add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, andhundreds of

  other things, plus on-line documentation.  We hope tosupply, eventually,

  everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, andmore.

  GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identicalto Unix.

  We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on ourexperience

  with other operating systems.  In particular, we plan tohave longer

  filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,filename

  completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, andperhaps

  eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lispprograms

  and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen.  Both C andLisp will be

  available as system programming languages.  We will try tosupport UUCP,

  MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.

  GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class withvirtual

  memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it runon.  The extra

  effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someonewho wants

  to use it on them.

  To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word`GNU'

  when it is the name of this project.

  Who Am I?

  I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitatedEMACS editor,

  formerly at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT.  I haveworked

  extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, commandinterpreters, the

  Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operatingsystem.  I

  ^^^^^%@#@#!@#

  pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. Since then I have

  implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems forLisp

  machines, and designed a third window system now beingimplemented; this

  one will be ported to many systems including use in GNU. [Historical note:

  The window system project was not completed; GNU now plans to usethe

  X window system.]

  Why I Must Write GNU

  I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a programI must

  share it with other people who like it.  Software sellerswant to divide

  the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to sharewith

  others.  I refuse to break solidarity with other users inthis way.  I

  cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or asoftware

  license agreement.  For years I worked within the ArtificialIntelligence

  Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, buteventually

  they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution wheresuch

  things are done for me against my will.

  So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I havedecided to

  put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will beable to

  get along without any software that is not free.  I haveresigned from the

  AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNUaway.

  Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix

  Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad.  Theessential features

  of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unixlacks

  without spoiling them.  And a system compatible with Unixwould be

  convenient for many other people to adopt.

  How GNU Will Be Available

  GNU is not in the public domain.  Everyone will be permittedto modify and

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrictits

  further redistribution.  That is to say, proprietarymodifications will not

  be allowed.  I want to make sure that all versions of GNUremain free.

  Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help

  I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU andwant to

  help.

  Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization ofsystem

  software.  It may enable them to make more money, but itrequires them to

  feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather thanfeel as

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  comrades.  The fundamental act of friendship amongprogrammers is the

  sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically usedessentially

  ^^^^^

  forbid programmers to treat others as friends.  Thepurchaser of software

  must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide

  that friendship is more important.  But those who believe inlaw often do

  not feel at ease with either choice.  They become cynicaland think that

  programming is just a way of making money.

  By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, wecan be

  hospitable to everyone and obey the law.  In addition, GNUserves as an

  example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us insharing.

  This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if weuse

  software that is not free.  For about half the programmers Italk to, this

  is an important happiness that money cannot replace.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  How You Can Contribute

  I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines andmoney.

  I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.

  One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNUwill run

  on them at an early date.  The machines should be complete,ready to use

  systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in needof

  sophisticated cooling or power.

  I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-timework for

  GNU.  For most projects, such part-time distributed workwould be very hard

  to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not worktogether.

  But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem isabsent.  A

  complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, eachof which

  is documented separately.  Most interface specifications arefixed by Unix

  compatibility.  If each contributor can write a compatiblereplacement for

  a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of theoriginal

  on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when puttogether.

  Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems,assembling

  these components will be a feasible task.  (The kernel willrequire closer

  communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)

  If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few peoplefull or

  part time.  The salary won't be high by programmers'standards, but I'm

  looking for people for whom building community spirit is asimportant as

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  making money.  I view this as a way of enabling dedicatedpeople to devote

  their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need tomake a

  living in another way.

  Why All Computer Users Will Benefit

  Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good systemsoftware

  free, just like air.

  This means much more than just saving everyone the price of aUnix license.

  It means that much wasteful duplication of system programmingeffort will

  be avoided.  This effort can go instead into advancing thestate of the

  art.

  Complete system sources will be available to everyone.  As aresult, a user

  who needs changes in the system will always be free to make themhimself,

  or hire any available programmer or company to make them forhim.  Users

  will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company whichowns the

  sources and is in sole position to make changes.

  Schools will be able to provide a much more educationalenvironment by

  encouraging all students to study and improve the systemcode.  Harvard's

  computer lab used to have the policy that no program could beinstalled on

  the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheldit by

  actually refusing to install certain programs.  I was verymuch inspired by

  this.

  Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system softwareand what

  one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.

  Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, includinglicensing of

  copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through thecumbersome

  mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, whichprograms) a

  person must pay for.  And only a police state can forceeveryone to obey

  them.  Consider a space station where air must bemanufactured at great

  cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, butwearing the

  metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even ifeveryone can

  afford to pay the air bill.  And the TV cameras everywhereto see if you

  ever take the mask off are outrageous.  It's better tosupport the air

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.

  Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmeras

  breathing, and as productive.  It ought to be as free.

  ^^^^^^^ ? as productive as breathing?

  Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals

  "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means

  they can't rely on any support."

  "You have to charge for the program

  to pay for providing the support."

  If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU freewithout

  service, a company to provide just service to people who haveobtained GNU

  free ought to be profitable.

  We must distinguish between support in the form of realprogramming work

  and mere handholding.  The former is something one cannotrely on from a

  ^^^^^^^^^

  software vendor.  If your problem is not shared by enoughpeople, the

  vendor will tell you to get lost.

  If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the onlyway is to

  have all the necessary sources and tools.  Then you can hireany available

  person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of anyindividual.

  With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of considerationfor most

  businesses.  With GNU this will be easy.  It is stillpossible for there to

  be no available competent person, but this problem cannot beblamed on

  distribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world'sproblems,

  only some of them.

  Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers needhandholding:

  ^^^^^^^^^^

  doing things for them which they could easily do themselves butdon't know

  how.

  Such services could be provided by companies that sell justhand-holding

  and repair service.  If it is true that users would ratherspend money and

  get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy theservice

  having got the product free.  The service companies willcompete in quality

  and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those

  of us who don't need the service should be able to use theprogram without

  paying for the service.

  "You cannot reach many people without advertising,

  and you must charge for the program to support that."

  "It's no use advertising a program people can get free."

  There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that canbe used to

  inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be

  true that one can reach more microcomputer users withadvertising.  If this

  is really so, a business which advertises the service of copyingand

  mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay forits

  advertising and more.  This way, only the users who benefitfrom the

  ^^^^^^^^^

  advertising pay for it.

  On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, andsuch

  companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was notreally

  necessary to spread GNU.  Why is it that free marketadvocates don't want

  to let the free market decide this?

  "My company needs a proprietary operating system

  to get a competitive edge."

  GNU will remove operating system software from the realm ofcompetition.

  You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neitherwill your

  competitors be able to get an edge over you.  You and theywill compete in

  other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one.  Ifyour business is

  selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that'stough on

  you.  If your business is something else, GNU can save youfrom being

  pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.

  I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many

  manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.

  "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"

  If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can

  be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is freeto use the

  results.  If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creatinginnovative

  programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if theyrestrict

  the use of these programs.

  "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for hiscreativity?"

  There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking tomaximize

  one's income, as long as one does not use means that aredestructive.  But

  the means customary in the field of software today are based on

  destruction.

  Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their useof it is

  destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and theways that

  the program can be used.  This reduces the amount of wealththat humanity

  ??????????????????????????????????????????????

  derives from the program.  When there is a deliberate choiceto restrict,

  the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.

  The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means tobecome

  wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorerfrom the

  mutual destructiveness.  This is Kantian ethics; or, theGolden Rule.

  Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyonehoards

  information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.

  Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity doesnot

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  justify depriving the world in general of all or part of thatcreativity.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  "Won't programmers starve?"

  I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot

  manage to get any money for standing on the street and makingfaces.  But

  we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing onthe

  street making faces, and starving.  We do something else.

  But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner'simplicit

  assumption: that without ownership of software, programmerscannot possibly

  be paid a cent.  Supposedly it is all or nothing.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will stillbe

  possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid asmuch as

  now.

  Restricting copying is not the only basis for business insoftware.  It is

  the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were

  prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business wouldmove to

  other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are

  always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.

  Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis asit is

  now.  But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered

  an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they nowdo.  If

  programmers made the same, that would not be an injusticeeither.  (In

  practice they would still make considerably more than that.)

  "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity isused?"

  "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes controlover other

  people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives moredifficult.

  People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rightscarefully

  (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right tointellectual

  property.  The kinds of supposed intellectual propertyrights that the

  government recognizes were created by specific acts oflegislation for

  specific purposes.

  For example, the patent system was established to encourageinventors to

  disclose the details of their inventions.  Its purpose wasto help society

  rather than to help inventors.  At the time, the life spanof 17 years for

  a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the stateof the

  art.  Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers,for whom the

  cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared withsetting up

  production, the patents often do not do much harm.  They donot obstruct

  most individuals who use patented products.

  The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, whenauthors

  frequently copied other authors at length in works ofnon-fiction.  This

  practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works havesurvived

  even in part.  The copyright system was created expresslyfor the purpose

  of encouraging authorship.  In the domain for which it wasinvented--books,

  which could be copied economically only on a printing press--itdid little

  harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read thebooks.

  All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted bysociety

  because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as awhole would

  benefit by granting them.  But in any particular situation,we have to ask:

  ??????????????????????????????

  are we really better off granting such license?  What kindof act are we

  licensing a person to do?

  The case of programs today is very different from that of books ahundred

  years ago.  The fact that the easiest way to copy a programis from one

  neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source codeand

  object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program isused rather

  than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which aperson who

  enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole bothmaterially and

  spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless ofwhether the

  law enables him to.

  "Competition makes things get done better."

  The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner,we

  encourage everyone to run faster.  When capitalism reallyworks this way,

  it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming italways works

  this way.  If the runners forget why the reward is offeredand become

  intent on winning, no matter how, they may find otherstrategies--such as,

  attacking other runners.  If the runners get into a fistfight, they will

  all finish late.

  Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent ofrunners in a

  fist fight.  Sad to say, the only referee we've got does notseem to

  object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yardsyou run, you

  are allowed one kick.").  He really ought to break them up,and penalize

  runners for even trying to fight.

  "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"

  Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetaryincentive.

  Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people,usually the

  people who are best at it.  There is no shortage ofprofessional musicians

  who keep at it even though they have no hope of making a livingthat way.

  But really this question, though commonly asked, is notappropriate to the

  situation.  Pay for programmers will not disappear, onlybecome less.  So

  the right question is, will anyone program with a reducedmonetary

  incentive?  My experience shows that they will.

  For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmersworked at the

  Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they couldhave had

  anywhere else.  They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards:fame and

  appreciation, for example.  And creativity is also fun, areward in itself.

  Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the sameinteresting

  work for a lot of money.

  What the facts show is that people will program for reasons otherthan

  riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well,they will

  come to expect and demand it.  Low-paying organizations dopoorly in

  competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to dobadly if the

  high-paying ones are banned.

  "We need the programmers desperately.  If they demand thatwe

  stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey."

  You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort ofdemand.

  Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!

  "Programmers need to make a living somehow."

  In the short run, this is true.  However, there are plentyof ways that

  programmers could make a living without selling the right to usea program.

  This way is customary now because it brings programmers andbusinessmen the

  most money, not because it is the only way to make aliving.  It is easy to

  find other ways if you want to find them.  Here are a numberof examples.

  A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for theporting of

  operating systems onto the new hardware.

  The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services couldalso

  employ programmers.

  People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware,asking for

  donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holdingservices.  I have

  met people who are already working this way successfully.

  Users with related needs can form users' groups, and paydues.  A group

  would contract with programming companies to write programs thatthe

  group's members would like to use.

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

  Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of

  the price as a software tax.  The government gives this to

  an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.

  But if the computer buyer makes a donation to softwaredevelopment

  himself, he can take a credit against the tax.  He candonate to

  the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopesto

  use the results when it is done.  He can take a credit forany amount

  of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.

  The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of

  the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.

  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 for themselves.

  In the long run, making programs free is a step toward thepost-scarcity

  world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make aliving.

  People will be free to devote themselves to activities that arefun,

  such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours aweek

  on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot

  repair and asteroid prospecting.  There will be no need tobe able

  to make a living from programming.

  We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole

  society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little ofthis

  has translated itself into leisure for workers because much

  nonproductive activity is required to accompany productiveactivity.

  The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

  against competition.  Free software will greatly reducethese

  drains in the area of software production.  We must do this,

  in order for technical gains in productivity to translate into

  less work for us.

  Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman

  Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatimcopies

  ^^^^^^^^^

  of this document as received, in any medium, provided that the

  copyright notice and permission notice are preserved,

  and that the distributor grants the recipient permission

  for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.

  Modified versions may not be made.

  注:标^^^^^与?????的地方翻译可能语意与原文不合。

个人工具
名字空间

变换
查看
操作
导航
工具箱