<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing copyleft" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Freedom Or Power?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!--
.epigraph { margin: 2em 0 2em 15%; color: #444; }
<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, general, public, license, gpl, general public license, freedom, software, power, rights" />
<meta http-equiv="Description" content="In this essay, Freedom or Power?, Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman discuss the reasons that the free software movement doesn't advocate the so-called freedom to choose any license you want for software you write." />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-power.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Freedom or Power?</h2>

by <strong>Bradley

<address class="byline">by Bradley M. Kuhn</strong> Kuhn and <strong>Richard Richard M. Stallman</strong></p>

<blockquote> Stallman</address>

<blockquote class="epigraph">
<p>The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the
love of ourselves.<br />
-- William Hazlitt</p> ourselves. —<i>William Hazlitt</i></p>

In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of
software.  We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are
necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a
community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration.  <a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">Our criteria for free software</a> specify
the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a

We stand for freedom for programmers as well as for other users.
Most of us are programmers, and we want freedom for ourselves as well
as for you.  But each of us uses software written by others, and we
want freedom when using that software, not just when using our own
code.  We stand for freedom for all users, whether they program often,
occasionally, or not at all.</p>

However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the
“freedom to choose any license you want for software you
write.”  We reject this because it is really a form of power,
not a freedom.</p>

This oft overlooked distinction is crucial.  Freedom is being able to make
decisions that affect mainly you; power is being able to make decisions
that affect others more than you.  If we confuse power with freedom, we
will fail to uphold real freedom.</p>

Making a program proprietary is an exercise of power.  Copyright law
today grants software developers that power, so they and only they
choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively small
number of people make the basic software decisions for all users,
typically by denying their freedom.  When users lack the
freedoms that define free software, they can't tell what the
software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible
viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being
reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out).  If it breaks,
they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its
power to do so.  If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck
with it.  They can't help each other improve it.</p>

Proprietary software developers are often businesses.  We in the free
software movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what
happens when a software business has the “freedom” to
impose arbitrary rules on the users of software.  Microsoft is an
egregious example of how denying users' freedoms can lead to direct
harm, but it is not the only example.  Even when there is no monopoly,
proprietary software harms society.  A choice of masters is not

Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated
on the interests of programmers alone.  Few people in the world
program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software
businesses.  But the entire developed world most of humanity now needs uses computers (specifically, smartphones) and thus uses
software, so software developers now control the way it lives,
does they live,
do business, communicates, communicate, and is are entertained.  The ethical and
political issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of
choice (for developers only).”</p>

If “code is law,” <a href="#f1">(1)</a> then the real
question we face is: who should control the
code you use—you, or an elite few?  We believe you are entitled
to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the
goal of free software.</p>

We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use;
however, that is not what today's law says.  Current copyright law places
us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or
not.  The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for
each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government
power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms.  That is what the <a
href="/licenses/copyleft.html">GNU General Public License</a> is for:
it puts you in control of your usage of the software while <a
href="/philosophy/why-copyleft.html">protecting you from others</a> who would
like to take control of your decisions.</p>

As more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that
they too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms
we stand for, just as more and more users have come to appreciate the
practical value of the free software we have developed.</p>


<a id="f1"></a> William

<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3>
<li id="f1">William J. Mitchell,
<cite>City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn </em> Infobahn</cite> (Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), p. 111, as quoted by Lawrence Lessig in
<cite>Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0</em> 2.0</cite> (New York, NY:
Basic Books, 2006), p. 5. 5.</li>

<hr class="no-display" />
<blockquote id="fsfs"><p>This
<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">This essay is published in
<a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote> Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer"> id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.  There are also <a
href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other
corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">

        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting contributing translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
information on coordinating and submitting contributing translations of this article.</p>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright © 2001, 2009, 2020 2021 Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman</p>

<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
without royalty in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2022/07/04 18:04:55 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->