Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rms From: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Subject: Copyleft vs Public Domain Message-ID: <9301090813.AA20380@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Sender: dae...@cis.ohio-state.edu Organization: GNUs Not Usenet Distribution: gnu Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:13:37 GMT Lines: 79 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.