browse.php

<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/government-free-software.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software</h2>

<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>

<p>This article suggests policies for a strong and firm effort to promote
free software within the state, and to lead the rest of the country
towards software freedom.</p>

<p>The mission of the state is to organize society for the freedom and
well-being of the people.  One aspect of this mission, in the
computing field, is to encourage users to adopt free software:
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">software that respects the users'
freedom</a>.  A proprietary (non-free) program tramples the freedom of
those that use it; it is a social problem that the state should work
to eradicate.</p>

<p>The state needs to insist on free software in its own computing for
the sake of its computational sovereignty (the state's control over
its own computing).  All users deserve control over their computing,
but the state has a responsibility to the people to maintain control
over the computing it does on their behalf.  Most government
activities now depend on computing, and its control over those
activities depends on its control over that computing.  Losing this
control in an agency whose mission is critical undermines national
security.</p>

<p>Moving state agencies to free software can also provide secondary
benefits, such as saving money and encouraging local software support
businesses.</p>

<p>In this text, &ldquo;state entities&rdquo; refers to all levels of government, and
means public agencies including schools, public-private partnerships,
largely state-funded activities such as charter schools, and &ldquo;private&rdquo;
corporations controlled by the state or established with special
privileges or functions by the state.</p>

<h3>Education</h3>
<p>The most important policy concerns education, since that shapes
the future of the country:</p>

<ul>
<li><b>Teach only free software</b><br />
Educational activities, or at least those of state entities, must
teach only free software (thus, they should never lead students to use
a nonfree program), and should teach the civic reasons for insisting
on free software.  To teach a nonfree program is to teach dependence,
which is contrary to the mission of the school.</li>
</ul>

<h3>The State and the Public</h3>
<p>Also crucial are state policies that influence what software
individuals and organizations use:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><b>Never require nonfree programs</b><br />
Laws and public sector practices must be changed so that they never
require or pressure individuals or organizations to use a nonfree
program.  They should also discourage communication and publication
practices that imply such consequences (including
<a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm">Digital
Restrictions Management</a>).</p></li>

<li><p><b>Distribute only free software</b><br />
Whenever a state entity distributes software to the public,
including programs included in or specified by its web pages, it must
be distributed as free software, and must be capable of running on a
platform containing exclusively free software.</p></li>

<li><p><b>State web sites</b><br />
State entity web sites and network services must be designed so
that users can use them, without disadvantage, by means of free
software exclusively.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Free formats and protocols</b><br />
State entities must use only file formats and communication
protocols that are well supported by free software, preferably with
published specifications.  (We do not state this in terms of
&ldquo;standards&rdquo; because it should apply to nonstandardized interfaces as
well as standardized ones.)  For example, they must not distribute
audio or video recordings in formats that require Flash or nonfree
codecs, and public libraries must not distribute works with Digital
Restrictions Management.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Untie computers from licenses</b><br />
Sale of computers must not require purchase of a proprietary
software license.  The seller should be required by law to offer the
purchaser the option of buying the computer without the proprietary
software and without paying the license fee.</p>
<p>The imposed payment is a secondary wrong, and should not distract
us from the essential injustice of proprietary software, the loss of
freedom which results from using it.  Nonetheless, the abuse of
forcing users to pay for it gives certain proprietary software
developers an additional unfair advantage, detrimental to users'
freedom.  It is proper for the state to prevent this abuse.</p>
</li>
</ul>

<h3>Computational Sovereignty</h3>
<p>Several policies affect the computational sovereignty of the state.
State entities must maintain control over their computing, not cede
control to private hands.  These points apply to all computers,
including smartphones.</p>

<ul>
<li><p><b>Migrate to free software</b><br />
State entities must migrate to free software, and must not install,
or continue using, any nonfree software except under a temporary
exception.  Only one agency should have the authority to grant these
temporary exceptions, and only when shown compelling reasons.  This
agency's goal should be to reduce the number of exceptions to zero.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Develop free IT solutions</b><br />
When a state entity pays for development of a computing solution, the
contract must require it be delivered as free software, and that it be
designed such that one can both run it and develop it on a 100%-free
environment.  All contracts must require this, so that if the
developer does not comply with these requirements, the work cannot be
paid for.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Choose computers for free software</b><br />
When a state entity buys or leases computers, it must choose among
the models that come closest, in their class, to being capable of
running without any proprietary software.  The state should maintain,
for each class of computers, a list of the models authorized based on
this criterion.  Models available to both the public and the state
should be preferred to models available only to the state.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Negotiate with manufacturers</b><br />
The state should negotiate actively with manufacturers to bring
about the availability in the market (to the state and the public) of
suitable hardware products, in all pertinent product areas, that
require no proprietary software.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Unite with other states</b><br />
The state should invite other states to negotiate collectively with
manufacturers about suitable hardware products.  Together they will
have more clout.</p></li>
</ul>

<h3>Computational Sovereignty II</h3>
<p>The computational sovereignty (and security) of the state includes
control over the computers that do the state's work.  This requires
avoiding <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
Software as a Service</a>, unless the service is run by a state
agency under the same branch of government, as well as other practices
that diminish the state control over its computing.  Therefore,</p>

<ul>
<li><b>State must control its computers</b><br />
Every computer that the state uses must belong to or be leased by
the same branch of government that uses it, and that branch must not
cede to outsiders the right to decide who has physical access to the
computer, who can do maintenance (hardware or software) on it, or
what software should be installed in it.  If the computer is not
portable, then while in use it must be in a physical space of which
the state is the occupant (either as owner or as tenant).</li>
</ul>

<h3>Influence Development</h3>
<p>State policy affects free and nonfree software development:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><b>Encourage free</b><br />
The state should encourage developers to create or enhance free
software and make it available to the public, e.g. by tax breaks
and other financial incentive.  Contrariwise, no such incentives
should be granted for development, distribution or use of nonfree
software.</p></li>

<li><p><b>Don't encourage nonfree</b><br />
In particular, proprietary software developers should not be able to
&ldquo;donate&rdquo; copies to schools and claim a tax write-off for the nominal
value of the software.  Proprietary software is not legitimate in a
school.</p></li>
</ul>

<h3>E-waste</h3>
<p>Freedom should not imply e-waste:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><b>Replaceable software</b><br />
Many modern computers are designed to make it impossible to
replace their preloaded software with free software.  Thus, the only
way to free them is to junk them.  This practice is harmful to
society.</p>

<p>Therefore, it should be illegal, or at least substantially
discouraged through heavy taxation, to sell, import or distribute in
quantity a new computer (that is, not second-hand) or computer-based
product for which secrecy about hardware interfaces or intentional
restrictions prevent users from developing, installing and using
replacements for any and all of the installed software that the
manufacturer could upgrade.  This would apply, in particular, to any
device on which &ldquo;jailbreaking&rdquo; is needed to install a
different operating system, or in which the interfaces for some
peripherals are secret.
</p></li>
</ul>

<h3>Technological neutrality</h3>

<p>With the measures in this article, the state can recover control
over its computing, and lead the country's citizens, businesses and
organizations towards control over their computing.  However, some
object on the grounds that this would violate the
&ldquo;principle&rdquo; of technological neutrality.</p>

<p>The idea of technological neutrality is that the state should not
impose arbitrary preferences on technical choices.  Whether that is a
valid principle is disputable, but it is limited in any case to issues
that are merely technical.  The measures advocated here address issues
of ethical, social and political importance, so they are
<a href="/philosophy/technological-neutrality.html">outside the scope
of <em>technological</em> neutrality</a>.  Only those who wish to
subjugate a country would suggest that its government be
&ldquo;neutral&rdquo; about its sovereignty or its citizens' freedom.</p>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other
corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p>
</div>

<p>Copyright &copy; 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2014/11/13 20:02:59 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
1	jturner	1.8	<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
2	ineiev	1.36	<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
3	dora	1.16	<title>Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software
4	ineiev	1.12	- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
5	ineiev	1.27	<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/government-free-software.translist" -->
6	ifarouk	1.1	<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
7	dora	1.16	<h2>Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software</h2>
8	ifarouk	1.1
9			<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
10			Stallman</strong></a></p>
11
12			<p>This article suggests policies for a strong and firm effort to promote
13			free software within the state, and to lead the rest of the country
14	jxself	1.3	towards software freedom.</p>
15	ifarouk	1.1
16			<p>The mission of the state is to organize society for the freedom and
17	jxself	1.3	well-being of the people. One aspect of this mission, in the
18	rms	1.30	computing field, is to encourage users to adopt free software:
19			<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">software that respects the users'
20			freedom</a>. A proprietary (non-free) program tramples the freedom of
21			those that use it; it is a social problem that the state should work
22			to eradicate.</p>
23	ifarouk	1.1
24			<p>The state needs to insist on free software in its own computing for
25			the sake of its computational sovereignty (the state's control over
26	jxself	1.3	its own computing). All users deserve control over their computing,
27	ifarouk	1.1	but the state has a responsibility to the people to maintain control
28	jxself	1.3	over the computing it does on their behalf. Most government
29	ifarouk	1.1	activities now depend on computing, and its control over those
30	jxself	1.3	activities depends on its control over that computing. Losing this
31	ifarouk	1.1	control in an agency whose mission is critical undermines national
32	jxself	1.3	security.</p>
33	ifarouk	1.1
34			<p>Moving state agencies to free software can also provide secondary
35			benefits, such as saving money and encouraging local software support
36	jxself	1.3	businesses.</p>
37	ifarouk	1.1
38	ineiev	1.12	<p>In this text, “state entities” refers to all levels of government, and
39	jxself	1.3	means public agencies including schools, public-private partnerships,
40	ineiev	1.12	largely state-funded activities such as charter schools, and “private”
41	jxself	1.3	corporations controlled by the state or established with special
42			privileges or functions by the state.</p>
43	ifarouk	1.1
44	rms	1.32	<h3>Education</h3>
45	ifarouk	1.1	<p>The most important policy concerns education, since that shapes
46	jxself	1.3	the future of the country:</p>
47	ifarouk	1.1
48			<ul>
49	rms	1.32	<li><b>Teach only free software</b><br />
50			Educational activities, or at least those of state entities, must
51	ifarouk	1.1	teach only free software (thus, they should never lead students to use
52			a nonfree program), and should teach the civic reasons for insisting
53	jxself	1.3	on free software. To teach a nonfree program is to teach dependence,
54			which is contrary to the mission of the school.</li>
55	ifarouk	1.1	</ul>
56
57	rms	1.32	<h3>The State and the Public</h3>
58	ifarouk	1.1	<p>Also crucial are state policies that influence what software
59	jxself	1.3	individuals and organizations use:</p>
60	ifarouk	1.1
61			<ul>
62	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Never require nonfree programs</b><br />
63			Laws and public sector practices must be changed so that they never
64	ifarouk	1.1	require or pressure individuals or organizations to use a nonfree
65	jxself	1.3	program. They should also discourage communication and publication
66	rms	1.15	practices that imply such consequences (including
67			<a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm">Digital
68	dora	1.16	Restrictions Management</a>).</p></li>
69	ifarouk	1.1
70	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Distribute only free software</b><br />
71			Whenever a state entity distributes software to the public,
72	ifarouk	1.1	including programs included in or specified by its web pages, it must
73			be distributed as free software, and must be capable of running on a
74	rms	1.21	platform containing exclusively free software.</p></li>
75	ifarouk	1.1
76	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>State web sites</b><br />
77			State entity web sites and network services must be designed so
78	rms	1.21	that users can use them, without disadvantage, by means of free
79			software exclusively.</p></li>
80	ifarouk	1.1
81	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Free formats and protocols</b><br />
82			State entities must use only file formats and communication
83	ifarouk	1.1	protocols that are well supported by free software, preferably with
84	jxself	1.3	published specifications. (We do not state this in terms of
85	ineiev	1.12	“standards” because it should apply to nonstandardized interfaces as
86	jxself	1.3	well as standardized ones.) For example, they must not distribute
87	ifarouk	1.1	audio or video recordings in formats that require Flash or nonfree
88			codecs, and public libraries must not distribute works with Digital
89	dora	1.16	Restrictions Management.</p></li>
90	rms	1.31
91	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Untie computers from licenses</b><br />
92			Sale of computers must not require purchase of a proprietary
93	rms	1.31	software license. The seller should be required by law to offer the
94			purchaser the option of buying the computer without the proprietary
95			software and without paying the license fee.</p>
96			<p>The imposed payment is a secondary wrong, and should not distract
97			us from the essential injustice of proprietary software, the loss of
98			freedom which results from using it. Nonetheless, the abuse of
99			forcing users to pay for it gives certain proprietary software
100			developers an additional unfair advantage, detrimental to users'
101			freedom. It is proper for the state to prevent this abuse.</p>
102			</li>
103	ifarouk	1.1	</ul>
104
105	rms	1.32	<h3>Computational Sovereignty</h3>
106	ifarouk	1.1	<p>Several policies affect the computational sovereignty of the state.
107			State entities must maintain control over their computing, not cede
108	jxself	1.3	control to private hands. These points apply to all computers,
109			including smartphones.</p>
110	ifarouk	1.1
111			<ul>
112	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Migrate to free software</b><br />
113			State entities must migrate to free software, and must not install,
114	ifarouk	1.1	or continue using, any nonfree software except under a temporary
115	jxself	1.3	exception. Only one agency should have the authority to grant these
116			temporary exceptions, and only when shown compelling reasons. This
117	dora	1.16	agency's goal should be to reduce the number of exceptions to zero.</p></li>
118	ifarouk	1.1
119	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Develop free IT solutions</b><br />
120	rms	1.33	When a state entity pays for development of a computing solution, the
121			contract must require it be delivered as free software, and that it be
122			designed such that one can both run it and develop it on a 100%-free
123			environment. All contracts must require this, so that if the
124	rms	1.34	developer does not comply with these requirements, the work cannot be
125	rms	1.33	paid for.</p></li>
126	ifarouk	1.1
127	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Choose computers for free software</b><br />
128			When a state entity buys or leases computers, it must choose among
129	ifarouk	1.1	the models that come closest, in their class, to being capable of
130	jxself	1.3	running without any proprietary software. The state should maintain,
131	ifarouk	1.1	for each class of computers, a list of the models authorized based on
132	jxself	1.3	this criterion. Models available to both the public and the state
133	dora	1.16	should be preferred to models available only to the state.</p></li>
134	ifarouk	1.1
135	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Negotiate with manufacturers</b><br />
136			The state should negotiate actively with manufacturers to bring
137	ifarouk	1.1	about the availability in the market (to the state and the public) of
138			suitable hardware products, in all pertinent product areas, that
139	dora	1.16	require no proprietary software.</p></li>
140	ifarouk	1.1
141	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Unite with other states</b><br />
142			The state should invite other states to negotiate collectively with
143	jxself	1.3	manufacturers about suitable hardware products. Together they will
144	dora	1.16	have more clout.</p></li>
145	ifarouk	1.1	</ul>
146
147	rms	1.32	<h3>Computational Sovereignty II</h3>
148	ifarouk	1.1	<p>The computational sovereignty (and security) of the state includes
149	jxself	1.3	control over the computers that do the state's work. This requires
150	dora	1.16	avoiding <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
151			Software as a Service</a>, unless the service is run by a state
152	ifarouk	1.1	agency under the same branch of government, as well as other practices
153	jturner	1.17	that diminish the state control over its computing. Therefore,</p>
154	ifarouk	1.1
155			<ul>
156	rms	1.32	<li><b>State must control its computers</b><br />
157			Every computer that the state uses must belong to or be leased by
158	rms	1.10	the same branch of government that uses it, and that branch must not
159			cede to outsiders the right to decide who has physical access to the
160			computer, who can do maintenance (hardware or software) on it, or
161			what software should be installed in it. If the computer is not
162			portable, then while in use it must be in a physical space of which
163			the state is the occupant (either as owner or as tenant).</li>
164	ifarouk	1.1	</ul>
165
166	rms	1.32	<h3>Influence Development</h3>
167			<p>State policy affects free and nonfree software development:</p>
168	ifarouk	1.1
169			<ul>
170	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Encourage free</b><br />
171			The state should encourage developers to create or enhance free
172	rms	1.37	software and make it available to the public, e.g. by tax breaks
173	jxself	1.3	and other financial incentive. Contrariwise, no such incentives
174	ineiev	1.13	should be granted for development, distribution or use of nonfree
175	dora	1.16	software.</p></li>
176	ifarouk	1.1
177	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Don't encourage nonfree</b><br />
178			In particular, proprietary software developers should not be able to
179	ineiev	1.12	“donate” copies to schools and claim a tax write-off for the nominal
180	jxself	1.3	value of the software. Proprietary software is not legitimate in a
181	dora	1.16	school.</p></li>
182	jxself	1.4	</ul>
183	ifarouk	1.1
184	rms	1.32	<h3>E-waste</h3>
185	rms	1.22	<p>Freedom should not imply e-waste:</p>
186
187			<ul>
188	rms	1.32	<li><p><b>Replaceable software</b><br />
189			Many modern computers are designed to make it impossible to
190	rms	1.22	replace their preloaded software with free software. Thus, the only
191			way to free them is to junk them. This practice is harmful to
192			society.</p>
193
194			<p>Therefore, it should be illegal, or at least substantially
195			discouraged through heavy taxation, to sell, import or distribute in
196			quantity a new computer (that is, not second-hand) or computer-based
197			product for which secrecy about hardware interfaces or intentional
198	rsd	1.28	restrictions prevent users from developing, installing and using
199	rms	1.22	replacements for any and all of the installed software that the
200			manufacturer could upgrade. This would apply, in particular, to any
201			device on which “jailbreaking” is needed to install a
202			different operating system, or in which the interfaces for some
203			peripherals are secret.
204			</p></li>
205	ineiev	1.23	</ul>
206	rms	1.22
207	rms	1.38	<h3>Technological neutrality</h3>
208
209			<p>With the measures in this article, the state can recover control
210			over its computing, and lead the country's citizens, businesses and
211			organizations towards control over their computing. However, some
212			object on the grounds that this would violate the
213			“principle” of technological neutrality.</p>
214
215			<p>The idea of technological neutrality is that the state should not
216			impose arbitrary preferences on technical choices. Whether that is a
217			valid principle is disputable, but it is limited in any case to issues
218			that are merely technical. The measures advocated here address issues
219			of ethical, social and political importance, so they are
220			<a href="/philosophy/technological-neutrality.html">outside the scope
221			of <em>technological</em> neutrality</a>. Only those who wish to
222	joeko	1.40	subjugate a country would suggest that its government be
223	th_g	1.39	“neutral” about its sovereignty or its citizens' freedom.</p>
224	ifarouk	1.1
225			</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
226			<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
227			<div id="footer">
228	ineiev	1.35	<div class="unprintable">
229	ifarouk	1.1
230	joeko	1.24	<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
231			href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also <a
232			href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other
233			corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
234			href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
235
236			<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
237			replace it with the translation of these two:
238
239			We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
240			translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
241			Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
242			to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
243			<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
244
245			<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
246			our web pages, see <a
247			href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
248			README</a>. -->
249			Please see the <a
250			href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
251			information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p>
252	ineiev	1.35	</div>
253	ifarouk	1.1
254	joeko	1.24	<p>Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
255	ifarouk	1.1
256			<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
257			href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
258			Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
259			</p>
260
261	ineiev	1.25	<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
262
263	ineiev	1.36	<p class="unprintable">Updated:
264	ifarouk	1.1	<!-- timestamp start -->
265	joeko	1.40	$Date: 2014/11/13 20:02:59 $
266	ifarouk	1.1	<!-- timestamp end -->
267			</p>
268			</div>
269			</div>
270			</body>
271			</html>
savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26