Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University
In the free software movement, we believe computer users should have the freedom to change and redistribute the software that they use. The “free” in “free software” refers to freedom: it means users have the freedom to run, modify and redistribute the software. Free software contributes to human knowledge, while nonfree software does not. Universities should therefore encourage free software for the sake of advancing human knowledge, just as they should encourage scientists and other scholars to publish their work.
Malauradament, molts administradors de les universitats mostren una actitud de cobdícia envers el programari (i la ciència): consideren els programes com una font d'ingressos, i no com a aportacions al coneixement humà. Els desenvolupadors de programari lliure han hagut de conviure amb aquesta tendència durant gairebé vint anys.
When I started developing the GNU operating system, in 1984, my first step was to quit my job at MIT. I did this specifically so that the MIT licensing office would be unable to interfere with releasing GNU as free software. I had planned an approach for licensing the programs in GNU that would ensure that all modified versions must be free software as well—an approach that developed into the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)—and I did not want to have to beg the MIT administration to let me use it.
Over the years, university affiliates have often come to the Free Software Foundation for advice on how to cope with administrators who see software only as something to sell. One good method, applicable even for specifically funded projects, is to base your work on an existing program that was released under the GNU GPL. Then you can tell the administrators, “We're not allowed to release the modified version except under the GNU GPL—any other way would be copyright infringement.” After the dollar signs fade from their eyes, they will usually consent to releasing it as free software.
You can also ask your funding sponsor for help. When a group at NYU developed the GNU Ada Compiler, with funding from the US Air Force, the contract explicitly called for donating the resulting code to the Free Software Foundation. Work out the arrangement with the sponsor first, then politely show the university administration that it is not open to renegotiation. They would rather have a contract to develop free software than no contract at all, so they will most likely go along.
Whatever you do, raise the issue early—well before the program is half finished. At this point, the university still needs you, so you can play hardball: tell the administration you will finish the program, make it usable, if they agree in writing to make it free software (and agree to your choice of free software license). Otherwise you will work on it only enough to write a paper about it, and never make a version good enough to release. When the administrators know their choice is to have a free software package that brings credit to the university or nothing at all, they will usually choose the former.
No totes les universitats tenen polítiques cobejoses. La Universitat de Texas té una política que fa molt simple publicar el programari que s'hi desenvolupa com a programari lliure sota la Llicència Pública General del GNU. Tant la Univates, al Brasil, com l'Indian Institute of Information Technology de Hyberabad, a l'Índia, tenen polítiques a favor de la publicació de programari sota la Llicència Pública General. Si us guanyeu primer el suport del professorat, podeu arribar a implantar una política semblant a la vostra universitat. Presenteu el tema com una qüestió de principis: té la universitat la missió de fer avançar el coneixement humà, o el seu únic propòsit és perpetuar-se a si mateixa?
Whatever approach you use, it helps to approach the issue with determination and based on an ethical perspective, as we do in the free software movement. To treat the public ethically, the software should be free—as in freedom—for the whole public.
Many developers of free software profess narrowly practical reasons for doing so: they advocate allowing others to share and change software as an expedient for making software powerful and reliable. If those values motivate you to develop free software, well and good, and thank you for your contribution. But those values do not give you a good footing to stand firm when university administrators pressure or tempt you to make the program nonfree.
Podran argumentar, per exemple, que "encara podríem fer-lo més potent i fiable amb els diners que en trauríem." Aquesta afirmació pot esdevenir o no certa amb el temps, però d'entrada és difícil de rebatre. Podrien suggerir una llicència per oferir còpies "gratuïtes i només per a ús acadèmic", fet que equivaldria a dir que el públic en general no mereix tenir llibertat, i argumentar que amb això s'obtindria la cooperació de la comunitat acadèmica, que (segons ells) és tot el que necessiteu.
If you start from values of convenience alone, it is hard to make a good case for rejecting these dead-end proposals, but you can do it easily if you base your stand on ethical and political values. What good is it to make a program powerful and reliable at the expense of users' freedom? Shouldn't freedom apply outside academia as well as within it? The answers are obvious if freedom and community are among your goals. Free software respects the users' freedom, while nonfree software negates it.
Res no reforça tant la vostra determinació com saber que la llibertat de la comunitat depèn, en una instància, de vosaltres.