/[www]/www/philosophy/government-free-software.html
ViewVC logotype

Contents of /www/philosophy/government-free-software.html

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log


Revision 1.63 - (show annotations) (download) (as text)
Wed Mar 16 13:55:24 2022 UTC (2 years, 5 months ago) by ineiev
Branch: MAIN
CVS Tags: HEAD
Changes since 1.62: +2 -2 lines
File MIME type: text/html
Fix 1.61.

1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding need" -->
5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
6 <title>Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software
7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/government-free-software.translist" -->
9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
13 <div class="article reduced-width">
14 <h2 style="margin-bottom: .2em">
15 Measures Governments Can Use to Promote Free Software</h2>
16 <h3 style="margin: 0 0 1.2em">
17 And why it is their duty to do so</h3>
18
19 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
20 Stallman</a></address>
21
22 <div class="introduction">
23 <p>This article suggests policies for a strong and firm effort to promote
24 free software within the state, and to lead the rest of the country
25 towards software freedom.</p>
26 </div>
27
28 <p>The mission of the state is to organize society for the freedom and
29 well-being of the people. One aspect of this mission, in the
30 computing field, is to encourage users to adopt free software:
31 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">software that respects the users'
32 freedom</a>. A proprietary (nonfree) program tramples the freedom of
33 those that use it; it is a social problem that the state should work
34 to eradicate.</p>
35
36 <p>The state needs to insist on free software in its own computing for
37 the sake of its computational sovereignty (the state's control over
38 its own computing). All users deserve control over their computing,
39 but the state has a responsibility to the people to maintain control
40 over the computing it does on their behalf. Most government
41 activities now depend on computing, and its control over those
42 activities depends on its control over that computing. Losing this
43 control in an agency whose mission is critical undermines national
44 security.</p>
45
46 <p>Moving state agencies to free software can also provide secondary
47 benefits, such as saving money and encouraging local software support
48 businesses.</p>
49
50 <p>In this text, &ldquo;state entities&rdquo; refers to all levels of government, and
51 means public agencies including schools, public-private partnerships,
52 largely state-funded activities such as charter schools, and &ldquo;private&rdquo;
53 corporations controlled by the state or established with special
54 privileges or functions by the state.</p>
55
56 <h3>Education</h3>
57 <p>The most important policy concerns education, since that shapes
58 the future of the country:</p>
59
60 <ul>
61 <li><b>Teach only free software</b><br />
62 Educational activities, or at least those of state entities, must
63 teach only free software (thus, they should never lead students to use
64 a nonfree program), and should teach the civic reasons for insisting
65 on free software. To teach a nonfree program is to teach dependence,
66 which is contrary to the mission of the school.</li>
67 </ul>
68
69 <h3>The State and the Public</h3>
70 <p>Also crucial are state policies that influence what software
71 individuals and organizations use:</p>
72
73 <ul>
74 <li><p><b>Never require nonfree programs</b><br />
75 Laws and public sector practices must be changed so that they never
76 require or pressure individuals or organizations to use a nonfree
77 program. They should also discourage communication and publication
78 practices that imply such consequences (including
79 <a href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management">Digital
80 Restrictions Management</a>).</p></li>
81
82 <li><p><b>Distribute only free software</b><br />
83 Whenever a state entity distributes software to the public,
84 including programs included in or specified by its web pages, it must
85 be distributed as free software, and must be capable of running on a
86 platform containing exclusively free software.</p></li>
87
88 <li><p><b>State web sites</b><br />
89 State entity web sites and network services must be designed so
90 that users can use them, without disadvantage, by means of free
91 software exclusively.</p></li>
92
93 <li><p><b>Free formats and protocols</b><br />
94 State entities must use only file formats and communication
95 protocols that are well supported by free software, preferably with
96 published specifications. (We do not state this in terms of
97 &ldquo;standards&rdquo; because it should apply to nonstandardized interfaces as
98 well as standardized ones.) For example, they must not distribute
99 audio or video recordings in formats that require Flash or nonfree
100 codecs, and public libraries must not distribute works with Digital
101 Restrictions Management.</p>
102
103 <p>To support the policy of distributing publications and works in
104 freedom-respecting formats, the state must insist that all reports
105 developed for it be delivered in freedom-respecting formats.</p></li>
106
107 <li><p><b>Untie computers from licenses</b><br />
108 Sale of computers must not require purchase of a proprietary
109 software license. The seller should be required by law to offer the
110 purchaser the option of buying the computer without the proprietary
111 software and without paying the license fee.</p>
112 <p>The imposed payment is a secondary wrong, and should not distract
113 us from the essential injustice of proprietary software, the loss of
114 freedom which results from using it. Nonetheless, the abuse of
115 forcing users to pay for it gives certain proprietary software
116 developers an additional unfair advantage, detrimental to users'
117 freedom. It is proper for the state to prevent this abuse.</p>
118 </li>
119 </ul>
120
121 <h3>Computational Sovereignty</h3>
122 <p>Several policies affect the computational sovereignty of the state.
123 State entities must maintain control over their computing, not cede
124 control to private hands. These points apply to all computers,
125 including smartphones.</p>
126
127 <ul>
128 <li><p><b>Migrate to free software</b><br />
129 State entities must migrate to free software, and must not install,
130 or continue using, any nonfree software except under a temporary
131 exception. Only one agency should have the authority to grant these
132 temporary exceptions, and only when shown compelling reasons. This
133 agency's goal should be to reduce the number of exceptions to zero.</p></li>
134
135 <li><p><b>Develop free IT solutions</b><br />
136 When a state entity pays for development of a computing solution, the
137 contract must require it be delivered as free software, and that it be
138 designed such that one can both run it and develop it on a 100%-free
139 environment. All contracts must require this, so that if the
140 developer does not comply with these requirements, the work cannot be
141 paid for.</p></li>
142
143 <li><p><b>Choose computers for free software</b><br />
144 When a state entity buys or leases computers, it must choose among
145 the models that come closest, in their class, to being capable of
146 running without any proprietary software. The state should maintain,
147 for each class of computers, a list of the models authorized based on
148 this criterion. Models available to both the public and the state
149 should be preferred to models available only to the state.</p></li>
150
151 <li><p><b>Negotiate with manufacturers</b><br />
152 The state should negotiate actively with manufacturers to bring
153 about the availability in the market (to the state and the public) of
154 suitable hardware products, in all pertinent product areas, that
155 require no proprietary software.</p></li>
156
157 <li><p><b>Unite with other states</b><br />
158 The state should invite other states to negotiate collectively with
159 manufacturers about suitable hardware products. Together they will
160 have more clout.</p></li>
161 </ul>
162
163 <h3>Computational Sovereignty II</h3>
164 <p>The computational sovereignty (and security) of the state includes
165 control over the computers that do the state's work. This requires
166 avoiding <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
167 Service as a Software Substitute</a>, unless the service is run by a state
168 agency under the same branch of government, as well as other practices
169 that diminish the state control over its computing. Therefore,</p>
170
171 <ul>
172 <li id="state-control"><b>State must control its computers</b><br />
173 Every computer that the state uses must belong to or be leased by
174 the same branch of government that uses it, and that branch must not
175 cede to outsiders the right to decide who has physical access to the
176 computer, who can do maintenance (hardware or software) on it, or
177 what software should be installed in it. If the computer is not
178 portable, then while in use it must be in a physical space of which
179 the state is the occupant (either as owner or as tenant).</li>
180 </ul>
181
182 <h3>Influence Development</h3>
183 <p>State policy affects free and nonfree software development:</p>
184
185 <ul>
186 <li><p><b>Encourage free</b><br />
187 The state should encourage developers to create or enhance free
188 software and make it available to the public, e.g. by tax breaks
189 and other financial incentive. Contrariwise, no such incentives
190 should be granted for development, distribution or use of nonfree
191 software.</p></li>
192
193 <li><p><b>Don't encourage nonfree</b><br />
194 In particular, proprietary software developers should not be able to
195 &ldquo;donate&rdquo; copies to schools and claim a tax write-off for the nominal
196 value of the software. Proprietary software is not legitimate in a
197 school.</p></li>
198 </ul>
199
200 <h3>E-waste</h3>
201 <p>Freedom should not imply e-waste:</p>
202
203 <ul>
204 <li><p><b>Replaceable software</b><br />
205 Many modern computers are designed to make it impossible to
206 replace their preloaded software with free software. Thus, the only
207 way to free them is to junk them. This practice is harmful to
208 society.</p>
209
210 <p>Therefore, it should be illegal, or at least substantially
211 discouraged through heavy taxation, to sell, import or distribute in
212 quantity a new computer (that is, not second-hand) or computer-based
213 product for which secrecy about hardware interfaces or intentional
214 restrictions prevent users from developing, installing and using
215 replacements for any and all of the installed software that the
216 manufacturer could upgrade. This would apply, in particular, to any
217 device on which <a href="/proprietary/proprietary-jails.html">&ldquo;jailbreaking&rdquo;</a> is needed to install a
218 different operating system, or in which the interfaces for some
219 peripherals are secret.
220 </p></li>
221 </ul>
222
223 <h3>Technological neutrality</h3>
224
225 <p>With the measures in this article, the state can recover control
226 over its computing, and lead the country's citizens, businesses and
227 organizations towards control over their computing. However, some
228 object on the grounds that this would violate the
229 &ldquo;principle&rdquo; of technological neutrality.</p>
230
231 <p>The idea of technological neutrality is that the state should not
232 impose arbitrary preferences on technical choices. Whether that is a
233 valid principle is disputable, but it is limited in any case to issues
234 that are merely technical. The measures advocated here address issues
235 of ethical, social and political importance, so they are
236 <a href="/philosophy/technological-neutrality.html">outside the scope
237 of <em>technological</em> neutrality</a>. Only those who wish to
238 subjugate a country would suggest that its government be
239 &ldquo;neutral&rdquo; about its sovereignty or its citizens' freedom.</p>
240 </div>
241
242 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
243 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
244 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
245 <div class="unprintable">
246
247 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
248 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>. There are also <a
249 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and other
250 corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
251 href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
252
253 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
254 replace it with the translation of these two:
255
256 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
257 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
258 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
259 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
260 &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
261
262 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
263 our web pages, see <a
264 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
265 README</a>. -->
266 Please see the <a
267 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
268 information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p>
269 </div>
270
271 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
272 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
273 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
274 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
275 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
276 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
277 document was modified, or published.
278
279 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
280 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
281 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
282 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
283 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
284
285 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
286 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
287
288 <p>Copyright &copy; 2011-2014, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022 Free Software
289 Foundation, Inc.</p>
290
291 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
292 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
293 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
294
295 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
296
297 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
298 <!-- timestamp start -->
299 $Date: 2022/03/16 04:25:33 $
300 <!-- timestamp end -->
301 </p>
302 </div>
303 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
304 </body>
305 </html>

savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org
ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26