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。

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 the complete

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

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

me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly

needed.

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

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

around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A

new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released

^^^^^^?

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

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

possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We

^^^^^

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

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

add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of

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

everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.

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

We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience

with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer

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

completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps

eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs

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

available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP,

MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.

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

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

effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who 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-imitated EMACS editor,

formerly at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked

extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the

Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I

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

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

implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp

machines, and designed a third window system now being implemented; 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 use the

X window system.]

Why I Must Write GNU

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

share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide

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

others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I

cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software

license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence

Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually

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

things are done for me against my will.

So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to

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

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

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

Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix

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

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

without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be

convenient for many other people to adopt.

How GNU Will Be Available

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

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

redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its

further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not

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

Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help

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

help.

Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system

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

feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as

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

comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the

sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially

^^^^^

forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software

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

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

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

programming is just a way of making money.

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

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

example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.

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

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

is an important happiness that money cannot replace.

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

How You Can Contribute

I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money.

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

One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will 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 need of

sophisticated cooling or power.

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

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

to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together.

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

complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which

is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix

compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for

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

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

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

these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require 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 people full or

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

looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as

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

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

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

living in another way.

Why All Computer Users Will Benefit

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

free, just like air.

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

It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will

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

art.

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

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

or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users

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

sources and is in sole position to make changes.

Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by

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

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

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

actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by

this.

Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what

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

Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of

copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome

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

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

them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great

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

metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can

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

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

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

plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.

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

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

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

Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals

If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without

service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU

free ought to be profitable.

We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work

and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a

^^^^^^^^^

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

vendor will tell you to get lost.

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

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

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

With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most

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

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

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

only some of them.

Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:

^^^^^^^^^^

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

how.

Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding

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

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

having got the product free. The service companies will compete 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 the program without

paying for the service.

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

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

true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this

is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and

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

advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the

^^^^^^^^^

advertising pay for it.

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

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

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

to let the free market decide this?

GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.

You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your

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

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

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

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

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

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

results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative

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

the use of these programs.

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

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

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

destruction.

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

destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that

the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity

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

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

the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.

The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become

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

mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.

Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards

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

Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not

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

justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.

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

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 making faces. But

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

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

But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit

assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly

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

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

The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be

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

now.

Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is

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

prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move 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 as it 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 now do. If

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

practice they would still make considerably more than that.)

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

People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully

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

property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the

government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for

specific purposes.

For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to

disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society

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

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

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

cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up

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

most individuals who use patented products.

The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors

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

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

even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose

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

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

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

All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society

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

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

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

are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we

licensing a person to do?

The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred

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

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

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

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

enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and

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

law enables him to.

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

encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way,

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

this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become

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

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

all finish late.

Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a

fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to

runners for even trying to fight.

Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.

Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the

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

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

But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the

situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So

the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary

incentive? My experience shows that they will.

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

Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had

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

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

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

work for a lot of money.

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than

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 do poorly in

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

high-paying ones are banned.

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

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

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

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

This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the

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

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

A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of

operating systems onto the new hardware.

The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also

employ programmers.

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

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

met people who are already working this way successfully.

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

would contract with programming companies to write programs that the

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 software development

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

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

use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any 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 the post-scarcity

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

People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun,

such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week

on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot

repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be 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 of this

has translated itself into leisure for workers because much

nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.

The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles

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

against competition. Free software will greatly reduce these

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 verbatim copies

^^^^^^^^^

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。