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.
Hélas, bien des directeurs d'universités ont une attitude possessive envers le logiciel (et envers la science); ils considèrent les programmes comme autant d'opportunités de revenus, et non comme une chance de participer à la connaissance humaine. Les développeurs de logiciels libres ont dû faire face à cette tendance depuis presque 20 ans.
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.
Toutes les universités n'ont pas des politiques possessives. L'Université du Texas a une politique qui permet facilement de diffuser un logiciel développé là-bas en tant que logiciel libre sous la Licence publique générale GNU. Univates au Brésil et l'Institut indien des technologies de l'information à Hyderabad, en Inde, ont tous deux adopté une politique en faveur de la diffusion des logiciels sous GPL. En développant tout d'abord l'appui du corps professoral, vous pouvez peut-être instaurer une politique de ce genre dans votre université. Présentez le problème comme une question de principe : est-ce que la mission de l'université est de faire progresser la connaissance humaine, ou est-ce que son seul but est de s'entretenir elle-même ?
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.
Par exemple, elle pourra avancer : « Nous pourrons le rendre encore plus puissant et fiable avec tout l'argent que nous en obtiendrons ». Cet argument peut s'avérer vrai ou faux au final, mais il est difficile de le démentir à l'avance. Ils pourraient suggérer une licence permettant d'offrir des copies « gratuites, réservées à une utilisation académique », ce qui signifie au public qu'il ne mérite pas de bénéficier de la liberté, et ils ajouteraient que cela vous permettra d'obtenir une coopération universitaire, ce qui est (selon eux) tout ce dont vous avezbesoin.
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.
Rien ne peut renforcer plus votre résolution que le fait de savoir que la liberté de la communauté dépend, en cette occasion, de vous.
Cet article est publié dans le livre Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
- Dans l'original en anglais, le terme « free » est employé, avec l'ambiguïté propre à la langue anglaise associée à ce mot qui signifie aussi bien « gratuit », ou « libre »