The GNU Manifesto | Page 5

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(7), 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