This is gpc.info, produced by makeinfo version 4.0 from gpc.texi.

INFO-DIR-SECTION GNU programming tools
START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
* GPC: (gpc).                   The GNU Pascal Compiler.
END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
INFO-DIR-SECTION Individual utilities
START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY
* GPC: (gpc)Invoking GPC.       The GNU Pascal Compiler.
END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY

   This file documents the GNU Pascal Compiler.

   Copyright (C) 1988, 1996-2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

   Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
preserved on all copies.

   Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also
that the sections entitled "GNU General Public License", "The GNU
Project", "The GNU Manifesto" and "Funding for Free Software" are
included exactly as in the original, and provided that the entire
resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission
notice identical to this one.

   Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this
manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified
versions, except that the sections entitled "GNU General Public
License", "The GNU Project", "The GNU Manifesto" and "Funding for Free
Software" and this permission notice, may be included in translations
approved by the Free Software Foundation instead of in the original
English.


File: gpc.info,  Node: Objections to GNU,  Prev: GNU Benefits,  Up: Manifesto

Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
----------------------------------------------

     "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't
     rely on any support."

     "You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the
     support."

   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.(1)

   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.

     "You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must
     charge for the program to support that."

     "It's no use advertising a program people can get free."

   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?(2)

     "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a
     competitive edge."

   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 benefiting 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.(3)

     "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"

   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.

     "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his
     creativity?"

   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.

     "Won't programmers starve?"

   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.)

     "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is
     used?"

   "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over
other 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.

     "Competition makes things get done better."

   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 object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you
run, you can fire one shot").  He really ought to break them up, and
penalize runners for even trying to fight.

     "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"

   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.

     "We need the programmers desperately.  If they demand that we stop
     helping our neighbors, we have to obey."

   You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!

     "Programmers need to make a living somehow."

   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.

   ---------- Footnotes ----------

   (1) Several such companies now exist.

   (2) The Free Software Foundation raises most of its funds from a
distribution service, although it is a charity rather than a company.
If _no one_ chooses to obtain copies by ordering from the FSF, it will
be unable to do its work.  But this does not mean that proprietary
restrictions are justified to force every user to pay.  If a small
fraction of all the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient
to keep the FSF afloat.  So we ask users to choose to support us in
this way.  Have you done your part?

   (3) A group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support
maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.


File: gpc.info,  Node: Funding,  Prev: Manifesto,  Up: GNU

Funding Free Software
=====================

   If you want to have more free software a few years from now, it makes
sense for you to help encourage people to contribute funds for its
development.  The most effective approach known is to encourage
commercial redistributors to donate.

   Users of free software systems can boost the pace of development by
encouraging for-a-fee distributors to donate part of their selling price
to free software developers - the Free Software Foundation, and others.

   The way to convince distributors to do this is to demand it and
expect it from them.  So when you compare distributors, judge them
partly by how much they give to free software development.  Show
distributors they must compete to be the one who gives the most.

   To make this approach work, you must insist on numbers that you can
compare, such as, "We will donate ten dollars to the Frobnitz project
for each disk sold."  Don't be satisfied with a vague promise, such as
"A portion of the profits are donated," since it doesn't give a basis
for comparison.

   Even a precise fraction "of the profits from this disk" is not very
meaningful, since creative accounting and unrelated business decisions
can greatly alter what fraction of the sales price counts as profit.
If the price you pay is $50, ten percent of the profit is probably less
than a dollar; it might be a few cents, or nothing at all.

   Some redistributors do development work themselves.  This is useful
too; but to keep everyone honest, you need to inquire how much they do,
and what kind.  Some kinds of development make much more long-term
difference than others.  For example, maintaining a separate version of
a program contributes very little; maintaining the standard version of a
program for the whole community contributes much.  Easy new ports
contribute little, since someone else would surely do them; difficult
ports such as adding a new CPU to the GNU C compiler contribute more;
major new features or packages contribute the most.

   By establishing the idea that supporting further development is "the
proper thing to do" when distributing free software for a fee, we can
assure a steady flow of resources into making more free software.

     Copyright (C) 1994 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
     Verbatim copying and redistribution of this section is permitted
     without royalty; alteration is not permitted.

