Summary
In the “The GNU Manifesto,” Richard Stallman argues that software should be shared freely, not restricted by copyrights that protect “intellectual property.” According to him, “The golden rule requires that if I [he] like a program I [he] must share it with other people who like it (Stallman 546).” Thus, he put together GNU to be a free software compatible to UNIX without the restrictions. Stallman used to work for the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT (546) and is passionate about programming, in a way that is more than just making money, and feels obligated to share his passion. His need to share his interest in programming is demonstrated in his multiple referrals to the Golden Rule and how he considers it wrong to hoard information (548).
Stallman uses his manifesto to explain to technology users, potential GNU users, and those who are uncertain about GNU what GNU is, why he thinks it is necessary, how it will be accomplished, how consumers will benefit, and addresses several doubts and questions there are regarding GNU, its effectiveness and to ask for support. He makes his target audience apparent in his very first sentence: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s Not Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it (Stallman 545).” This manifesto’s purpose is to gain support for GNU, thus if it does not effectively portray Stallman’s purpose in creating GNU and why it is essential, it would be possible that he could not complete his project as a direct result of lacking support and backing as well as a potential market for his product.
Inquiry
When I first read Stallman’s “The GNU Manifesto,” I was extremely confused because I am very unfamiliar with most of the technical terms and references that were used to convey the main content of the Manifesto. For example, I had no clue what UNIX was, but I used New Media to clear up my confusion. When UNIX was defined as a computer operating system, I was still lost. Then I became very grateful for hypertext when I clicked on the link provided to define that. If you are confused regarding these terms I hyperlinked what I referred to. This is also an interesting link to explore: http://www.gnu.org/
I do not believe it is wrong to charge for software and computer operating systems. It encourages a competitive market and provides jobs for a multitude of people, not just the programmers themselves, but also the other people who work at such companies such as Microsoft Windows (this link is to view the trademarks) and Mac OS X. Stallman’s arguments addressing objections to GNU’s goals do not convince me. I believe that competition leads to the development of better technology and better prices. I also believe that the income received helps provide income for many people including the janitors for Microsoft Windows AND the programmers, protecting their intellectual property. GNU is cause for debate in several areas:
1) Should access to computer operating systems and software be free? Why?
2) What would be the repercussions if free software like GNU were to crowd non-free UNIX software out of the market?
3) Is there a possible compromise between UNIX and GNU?
By Brittney Beck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a current economic student, I have learned some about licensing, copy rights, etc. From this economic perspective, restrictions such as licensing are more of a way to prevent too much competition and ultimately failure rather than to protect the rights of the owner. Giving out free software also goes along these lines. If it were free, substitutes and false deals would come to play. By charging for the computer system, we keep competition in control and the quality of a product keeps constant or improves. Brittney is correct when she claims charging for computer software encourages competition, better technology, and hires many jobs. I’m not sure that there is any compromise between GNU and UNIX. The software is either free or not, there is no happy medium here. One software will win and the other will lose, plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteI believe there are many gray areas within the government's jurisdiction and regulation of illegal program and file sharing. The cost of distributing GNU is not entirely free: they ask for donations to recoup their costs not unlike a regular business. I know several people, unfamiliar with computer hacking, who have acquired the new Windows 7 operating system without purchasing it. Yes, charging for computer software is necessary and economically correct. However, there is an in-between, and as long as it's not heavily regulated by the government, people will still be able to easily access any software. That's the only facet of the argument on which I can really comment, as I wasn't able to decipher the language within the Wikipedia description of Unix or GNU.
ReplyDeleteThis issue of charging for computer operating systems and software is not an easily one in which to draw conclusions. Because of the Internet, there are so many more opportunities for people to share software and operating systems that they have either developed themselves or have gotten a hold of in some form or another, and in this aspect the debate over free software is very similar to the debate over free music sharing. Where software is concerned, however, the authorship is much less clear. It would seem to make sense that most people would have less of an ethical problem distributing cool software developed by some nameless, faceless guy, rather than the music of an up-and-coming band on an independent label that rely on music sales to keep them afloat. The general principle, however, is the same. Charging for software and operating systems keeps the industry running smoothly, rewards the programmers behind the software, and pays for jobs in the industry. On the other side of the debate, I feel that if programmers want to offer their software for free, they should be allowed to do so in accordance with their own personal philosophies. What is wrong is when software/operating systems are hacked, tampered with, and offered for free by parties not involved in its development, production, or distribution. In a nutshell, however GNU and UNIX wish to conduct business and disseminate their software should be completely up to them. Neither group should force their ideals on the other.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me most about "The GNU Manifesto" was it didn't seem that Stallman was arguing about intellectual property rights in the manner we associate the term with an artist or singer's work. Instead, he seems to be supporting the idea of an open system code allowing for anyone and everyone to manipulate and attempt improving it. He does not seem against the idea of profiting from the program, such as when he presents the idea of a profitable company simply devoted to GNU support since the company itself provides none. Charging for software that could be continuously manipulated in any manner besides a subscription service does not seem possible. Again, however, charging would lead to some people being unable to afford the subscription and the ability to manipulate the code, which is the main component it seems Stallman wants in his operating software. The desire for the ability to manipulate software is understandable since that is the only way to ensure the software to develop to its utmost potential but it creates a catch-22 since when it comes down to it money is to much of a necessity to allow for an environment of all GNU like software.
ReplyDelete