The GNU Manifesto | Page 3

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.
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.(3)
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?(4)
"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.(5)
"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