diff options
| author | Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> | 2014-03-22 16:47:20 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> | 2014-03-22 16:47:20 -0700 |
| commit | 00156f954984c1084180ca87832fcd32f05aa327 (patch) | |
| tree | 60f0551f404a59fe881a698248a874b298b6c632 | |
| parent | 10211d43fa7eddfd644f8f95650a691989611e8c (diff) | |
Make some files in etc obsolete
These are old copies of online information that is not Emacs-specific.
* etc/CENSORSHIP, etc/GNU, etc/LINUX-GNU, etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT, etc/WHY-FREE:
Replace contents with pointers to www.gnu.org or emacs.info, mark obsolete.
* src/callproc.c (init_callproc): In etc, look for NEWS rather than GNU.
* lisp/startup.el (fancy-startup-text):
* lisp/help.el (describe-gnu-project): Visit online info about GNU project.
* doc/emacs/help.texi (Help Files): Update C-h g description.
* doc/misc/efaq.texi (Informational files for Emacs): Do not mention etc/GNU.
* admin/notes/copyright: Remove references to these files.
* etc/MACHINES, etc/NEWS.19: Replace references to these files.
| -rw-r--r-- | admin/notes/copyright | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/emacs/ChangeLog | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/emacs/help.texi | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/misc/ChangeLog | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/misc/efaq.texi | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/CENSORSHIP | 89 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/ChangeLog | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/GNU | 546 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/LINUX-GNU | 149 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/MACHINES | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/NEWS.19 | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT | 905 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | etc/WHY-FREE | 246 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | lisp/ChangeLog | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | lisp/help.el | 8 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | lisp/startup.el | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/ChangeLog | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/callproc.c | 4 |
18 files changed, 60 insertions, 1934 deletions
diff --git a/admin/notes/copyright b/admin/notes/copyright index a54bcb6108..9b4fd55c61 100644 --- a/admin/notes/copyright +++ b/admin/notes/copyright @@ -161,13 +161,6 @@ etc/letter.pbm,letter.xpm etc/FTP, ORDERS - trivial (at time of writing), no license needed -etc/GNU, INTERVIEW, LINUX-GNU, MOTIVATION, SERVICE, THE-GNU-PROJECT, -WHY-FREE - rms: "These are statements of opinion or testimony. Their licenses - should permit verbatim copying only. Please don't change the - licenses that they have. They are distributed with Emacs but they - are not part of Emacs." - etc/HELLO standard notices. Just a note that although the file itself is not really copyrightable, in the wider context of it being part of diff --git a/doc/emacs/ChangeLog b/doc/emacs/ChangeLog index 34679b8ba1..2432f18cb1 100644 --- a/doc/emacs/ChangeLog +++ b/doc/emacs/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2014-03-22 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> + + * help.texi (Help Files): Update C-h g description. + 2014-03-16 Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> * programs.texi (Matching): Update the missed spot. (Bug#17008) diff --git a/doc/emacs/help.texi b/doc/emacs/help.texi index 11694191f9..fcc0cf1504 100644 --- a/doc/emacs/help.texi +++ b/doc/emacs/help.texi @@ -605,7 +605,8 @@ Display information about where to get external packages @item C-h C-f Display the Emacs frequently-answered-questions list (@code{view-emacs-FAQ}). @item C-h g -Display information about the GNU Project (@code{describe-gnu-project}). +Visit a @uref{http://www.gnu.org} page with information about the GNU +Project (@code{describe-gnu-project}). @item C-h C-m Display information about ordering printed copies of Emacs manuals (@code{view-order-manuals}). diff --git a/doc/misc/ChangeLog b/doc/misc/ChangeLog index 34021fd3d9..1660527ff4 100644 --- a/doc/misc/ChangeLog +++ b/doc/misc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2014-03-22 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> + + * efaq.texi (Informational files for Emacs): Do not mention etc/GNU. + 2014-03-21 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> * ede.texi (ede-linux): diff --git a/doc/misc/efaq.texi b/doc/misc/efaq.texi index 51d2cc00d5..f4975e76c7 100644 --- a/doc/misc/efaq.texi +++ b/doc/misc/efaq.texi @@ -883,9 +883,6 @@ GNU General Public License @item DISTRIB Emacs Availability Information -@item GNU -The GNU Manifesto - @item MACHINES Status of Emacs on Various Machines and Systems diff --git a/etc/CENSORSHIP b/etc/CENSORSHIP index 33da02ca10..a276331c57 100644 --- a/etc/CENSORSHIP +++ b/etc/CENSORSHIP @@ -1,87 +1,8 @@ - Censoring my Software - Richard Stallman - [From Datamation, 1 March 1996] +Censoring my Software +Note added March 2014: -Last summer, a few clever legislators proposed a bill to "prohibit -pornography" on the Internet. Last fall, right-wing Christians made -this cause their own. Last week, President Clinton signed the bill, -and we lost the freedom of the press for the public library of the -future. This week, I'm censoring GNU Emacs. +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use -No, GNU Emacs does not contain pornography. It is a software package, -an award-winning extensible and programmable text editor. But the law -that was passed applies to far more than pornography. It prohibits -"indecent" speech, which can include anything from famous poems, to -masterpieces hanging in the Louvre, to advice about safe sex...to -software. - -Naturally, there was a lot of opposition to this bill. Not only from -people who use the Internet, and people who appreciate erotica, but -from everyone who cares about freedom of the press. - -But every time we tried to tell the public what was at stake, the -forces of censorship responded with a lie: they told the public that -the issue was simply pornography. By embedding this lie as a -presupposition in their statements about the issue, they succeeded in -misinforming the public. So here I am, censoring my software. - -You see, Emacs contains a version of the famous "doctor program", -a.k.a. Eliza, originally developed by Professor Weizenbaum at MIT. -This is the program that imitates a Rogerian psychotherapist. The -user talks to the program, and the program responds--by playing back -the user's own statements, and by recognizing a long list of -particular words. - -The Emacs doctor program was set up to recognize many common curse -words, and respond with an appropriately cute message such as, "Would -you please watch your tongue?" or "Let's not be vulgar." In order to -do this, it had to have a list of curse words. That means the source -code for the program was indecent. - -Because of the censorship law, I had to remove this feature. (I -replaced it with a message announcing that the program has been -censored for your protection.) The new version of the doctor doesn't -recognize the indecent words. If you curse at it, it curses right -back to you--for lack of knowing better. - -Now that people are facing the threat of two years in prison for -indecent network postings, it would be helpful if they could access -precise rules via the Internet for how to avoid imprisonment. -However, this is impossible. The rules would have to mention the -forbidden words, so posting them on the Internet would be against the -rules. - -Of course, I'm making an assumption about just what "indecent" means. -I have to do this, because nobody knows for sure. The most obvious -possible meaning is the meaning it has for television, so I'm using -that as a tentative assumption. However, there is a good chance that -our courts will reject that interpretation of the law as -unconstitutional. - -We can hope that the courts will recognize the Internet as a medium of -publication like books and magazines. If they do, they will entirely -reject any law prohibiting "indecent" publications on the Internet. - -What really worries me is that the courts might take a muddled -in-between escape route--by choosing another interpretation of -"indecent", one that permits the doctor program or a statement of the -decency rules, but prohibits some of the books that children can -browse through in the public library and the bookstore. Over the -years, as the Internet replaces the public library and the bookstore, -some of our freedom of the press will be lost. - -Just a few weeks ago, another country imposed censorship on the -Internet. That was China. We don't think well of China in this -country--its government doesn't respect basic freedoms. But how well -does our government respect them? And do you care enough to preserve -them here? - -If you care, stay in touch with the Voters Telecommunications Watch. -Look in their Web site http://www.vtw.org/ for background information -and political action recommendations. Censorship won in February, but -we can beat it in November. - -Copyright 1996 Richard Stallman -Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium -provided this notice is preserved. +<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html> diff --git a/etc/ChangeLog b/etc/ChangeLog index 833fecaaba..bb139e601c 100644 --- a/etc/ChangeLog +++ b/etc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2014-03-22 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> + + * CENSORSHIP, GNU, LINUX-GNU, THE-GNU-PROJECT, WHY-FREE: Replace + contents with pointers to www.gnu.org or emacs.info, mark obsolete. + 2014-03-14 Rüdiger Sonderfeld <ruediger@c-plusplus.de> * tutorials/TUTORIAL.de: Adapt to recent changes in TUTORIAL. @@ -1,544 +1,8 @@ -Copyright (C) 1985, 1993, 2001-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. - - Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies -of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and -permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the -recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this -notice. - - Modified versions may not be made. - The GNU Manifesto -***************** - - The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard - Stallman at the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for - participation and support. For the first few years, it was - updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it - seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it. - - Since that time, we have learned about certain common - misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. - Footnotes added in 1993 help clarify these points. - - For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, - please see www.gnu.org. For software tasks to work on, see - http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist. For other ways - to contribute, see http://www.gnu.org/help. - -What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix! -============================ - - GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete -Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it -away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers are -helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are -greatly needed. - - So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor -commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, -a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is -nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled -itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but -many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and -compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system -suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text -formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, -portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable -Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other -things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, -everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more. - - GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to -Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our -experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to -have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, -file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and -perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several -Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C -and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will -try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for -communication. - - GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with -virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run -on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left -to someone who wants to use it on them. - - To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word -`GNU' when it is the name of this project. - -Why I Must Write GNU -==================== - - I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I -must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to -divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share -with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this -way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a -software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial -Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, -but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an -institution where such things are done for me against my will. - - So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have -decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I -will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I -have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent -me from giving GNU away. - -Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix -==================================== - - Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential -features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what -Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix -would be convenient for many other people to adopt. - -How GNU Will Be Available -========================= - - GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to -modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to -restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary -modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all -versions of GNU remain free. - -Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help -======================================= - - I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and -want to help. - - Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system -software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them -to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel -as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the -sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used -essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The -purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the -law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But -those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. -They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making -money. - - By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can -be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as -an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in -sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if -we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I -talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace. - -How You Can Contribute -====================== - - I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and -money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work. - - One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU -will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, -ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not -in need of sophisticated cooling or power. - - I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time -work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would -be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not -work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this -problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility -programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface -specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor -can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make -it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these -utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy -to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will -be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and -will be worked on by a small, tight group.) - - If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full -or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but -I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as -important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated -people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them -the need to make a living in another way. - -Why All Computer Users Will Benefit -=================================== - - Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system -software free, just like air.(2) - - This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix -license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming -effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the -state of the art. - - Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, -a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them -himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for -him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company -which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. - - Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment -by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. -Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be -installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and -upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very -much inspired by this. - - Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software -and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. - - Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including -licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through -the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, -which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can -force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must -be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air -may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is -intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the -TV cameras everywhere to see if you 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 restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. - - The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to -become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become -poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, -the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if -everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one -to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity -does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that -creativity. - - "Won't programmers starve?" - - I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us -cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making -faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives -standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something -else. - - But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's -implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers -cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. - - The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be -possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as -now. - - Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. -It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it -were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would -move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. -There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business. - - Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it -is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not -considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they -now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice -either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than -that.) - - "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is - used?" - - "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over -other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more -difficult. - - People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(6) -carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to -intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property -rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of -legislation for specific purposes. - - For example, the patent system was established to encourage -inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was -to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life -span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of -advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among -manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are -small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do -much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented -products. - - The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors -frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This -practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have -survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for -the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was -invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing -press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals -who read the books. - - All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society -because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole -would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we -have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind -of act are we licensing a person to do? - - The case of programs today is very different from that of books a -hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is -from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source -code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is -used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in -which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole -both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so -regardless of whether the law enables him to. - - "Competition makes things get done better." - - The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we -encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this -way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it -always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered -and 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 activity. -The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against -competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the -area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical -gains in productivity to translate into less work for us. - - ---------- Footnotes ---------- - - (1) The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody -would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But the -words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying -that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge. -That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the -possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a -profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between -"free" in the sense of freedom and "free" in the sense of price. Free -software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and -change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to -obtain copies--and if the funds help support improving the software, so -much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy -has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it. - - (2) This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between -the two different meanings of "free". The statement as it stands is -not false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your -friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea. - - (3) Several such companies now exist. - - (4) The Free Software Foundation raised most of its funds for 10 -years from a distribution service, although it is a charity rather -than a company. - - (5) A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to -support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler. - (6) In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak -of "the issue" of "intellectual property". That term is obviously -biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together various -disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I urge -people to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest it -lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be -clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately. -See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation -of how this term spreads confusion and bias. +Note added March 2014: - (7) Subsequently we have learned to distinguish between "free -software" and "freeware". The term "freeware" means software you are -free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and change -the source code, so most of it is not free software. See -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more -explanation. +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use + info node `(emacs)Manifesto' +instead. diff --git a/etc/LINUX-GNU b/etc/LINUX-GNU index 8d55f1a5c2..9e1c1a513a 100644 --- a/etc/LINUX-GNU +++ b/etc/LINUX-GNU @@ -1,147 +1,8 @@ - Linux and the GNU system +Linux and the GNU system -The GNU project started in 1984 with the goal of developing a complete -free Unix-like operating system: GNU. "Free" refers to freedom, not -price; it means you are free to run, copy, distribute, study, change, -and improve the software. +Note added March 2014: -A Unix-like system consists of many different programs. We found some -components already available as free software--for example, X Windows -and TeX. We obtained other components by helping to convince their -developers to make them free--for example, the Berkeley network -utilities. This left many missing components that we had to write in -order to produce GNU--for example, GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, the -GNU C library, Bash, and Ghostscript. The GNU system consists of all -these components together. - -The GNU project is not just about developing and distributing some -useful free software. The heart of the GNU project is an idea: that -software should be free, that software users should have freedom to -participate in a community. To run your computer, you need an -operating system; if it is not free, your freedom has been denied. To -have freedom, you need a free operating system. We therefore set out -to write one. - -In the long run, though, we cannot expect to keep the free operating -system free unless the users are aware of the freedom it gives them, -and value that freedom. People who do not appreciate their freedom -will not keep it long. If we want to make freedom last, we need to -spread awareness of the freedoms they have in free software. - -The GNU project's method is that free software and the idea of users' -freedom support each other. We develop GNU software, and as people -encounter GNU programs or the GNU system and start to use them, they -also think about the GNU idea. The software shows that the idea can -work in practice. Some of these people come to agree with the idea, -and then they are more likely to write additional free software. -Thus, the software embodies the idea, spreads the idea, and grows from -the idea. - -Early on in the development of GNU, various parts of it became popular -even though users needed proprietary systems to run them on. Porting -the system to many systems and maintaining them required a lot of -work. After that work, most GNU software is easily configured for a -variety of different platforms. - -By 1991, we had found or written all of the essential major components -of the system except the kernel, which we were writing. (This kernel -consists of the Mach microkernel plus the GNU HURD. The first test -release was made in 1996. Now, in 2002, it is running well, and -Hurd-based GNU systems are starting to be used.) - -That was the situation when Linux came into being. Linux is a kernel, -like the kernel of Unix; it was written by Linus Torvalds, who -released it under the GNU General Public License. He did not write -this kernel for GNU, but it fit into the gap in GNU. The combination -of GNU and Linux included all the major essential components of a -Unix-compatible operating system. Other people, with some work made -the combination into a usable system. The principal use of Linux, the -kernel, is as part of this combination. - -The popularity of the GNU/Linux combination is success, in the sense -of popularity, for GNU. Ironically, the popularity of GNU/Linux -undermines our method of communicating the ideas of GNU to people who -use GNU. - -When GNU programs were only usable individually on top of another -operating system, installing and using them meant knowing and -appreciating these programs, and thus being aware of GNU, which led -people to think about the philosophical base of GNU. Now users can -install a unified operating system which is basically GNU, but they -usually think these are "Linux systems". At first impression, a -"Linux system" sounds like something completely distinct from the "GNU -system," and that is what most users think. - -This leads many users to identify themselves as a separate community -of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community. They use more -than just some GNU programs, they use almost all of the GNU system, -but they don't think of themselves as GNU users. Often they never -hear about the GNU idea; if they do, they may not think it relates to -them. - -Most introductions to the "Linux system" acknowledge that GNU software -components play a role in it, but they don't say that the system as a -whole is a modified version of the GNU system that the GNU project has -been developing and compiling since Linus Torvalds was in junior high -school. They don't say that the main reason this free operating -exists is that the GNU Project worked persistently to achieve its goal -of freedom. - -As a result, most users don't know these things. They believe that -the "Linux system" was developed by Linus Torvalds "just for fun", and -that their freedom is a matter of good fortune rather than the -dedicated pursuit of freedom. This creates a danger that they will -leave the survival of free software to fortune as well. - -Since human beings tend to correct their first impressions less than -called for by additional information they learn later, these users -will tend to continue to underestimate their connection to GNU even if -they do learn the facts. - -When we began trying to support the GNU/Linux system, we found this -widespread misinformation led to a practical problem--it hampered -cooperation on software maintenance. Normally when users change a GNU -program to make it work better on a particular system, they send the -change to the maintainer of that program; then they work with the -maintainer, explaining the change, arguing for it, and sometimes -rewriting it for the sake of the overall coherence and maintainability -of the package, to get the patch installed. But people who thought of -themselves as "Linux users" showed a tendency to release a forked -"Linux-only" version of the GNU program and consider the job done. In -some cases we had to redo their work in order to make GNU programs run -as released in GNU/Linux systems. - -How should the GNU project encourage its users to cooperate? How -should we spread the idea that freedom for computer users is -important? - -We must continue to talk about the freedom to share and change -software--and to teach other users to value these freedoms. If we -value having a free operating system, it makes sense to think about -preserving those freedoms for the long term. If we value having a -variety of free software, it makes sense to think about encouraging -others to write free software, instead of proprietary software. - -However, it is not enough just to talk about freedom; we must also -make sure people know the reasons it is worth listening to what we -say. - -Long explanations such as our philosophical articles are one way of -informing the public, but you may not want to spend so much time on -the matter. The most effective way you can help with a small amount -of work is simply by using the terms "Linux-based GNU system" or -"GNU/Linux system", instead of "Linux system," when you write about or -mention such a system. Seeing these terms will show many people the -reason to pay attention to our philosophical articles. - -The system as a whole is more GNU than Linux; the name "GNU/Linux" is -fair. When you are choosing the name of a distribution or a user -group, a name with "GNU/Linux" will reflect both roots of the combined -system, and will bring users into connection with both--including the -spirit of freedom and community that is the basis and purpose of GNU. - - -Copyright 1996, 2002 Richard Stallman -Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted -without royalty as long as this notice is preserved. +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use +<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html> diff --git a/etc/MACHINES b/etc/MACHINES index d60510eab9..8f561d1e36 100644 --- a/etc/MACHINES +++ b/etc/MACHINES @@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ the list at the end of this file. The GNU project wants users of GNU/Linux systems to be aware of how these systems relate to the GNU project, because that will help spread the GNU idea that software should be free--and thus encourage - people to write more free software. See the file LINUX-GNU in this - directory for more explanation. + people to write more free software. For more information, see + <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html>. *** 64-bit GNU/Linux diff --git a/etc/NEWS.19 b/etc/NEWS.19 index 3b73e863ce..17104aaf3c 100644 --- a/etc/NEWS.19 +++ b/etc/NEWS.19 @@ -614,7 +614,7 @@ be different. It is generally recommended to use `system-configuration' rather than `system-type'. -See the file LINUX-GNU in this directory for more about this. +See <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html> for more about this. ** The functions shell-command and dired-call-process now run file name handlers for default-directory, if it has them. diff --git a/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT index f3d554e45b..ece9aa6d88 100644 --- a/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT +++ b/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT @@ -1,903 +1,8 @@ - The GNU Project +The GNU Project - by Richard Stallman +Note added March 2014: - originally published in the book "Open Sources" +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use - The first software-sharing community - - When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, - I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many - years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular community; - it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as - cooking. But we did it more than most. - - The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the - Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had - designed and written in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one - of the large computers of the era. As a member of this community, an AI - lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system. - - We did not call our software "free software", because that term did not - yet exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from another - university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let - them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program, - you could always ask to see the source code, so that you could read it, - change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new program. - - (1) The use of "hacker" to mean "security breaker" is a confusion on - the part of the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that - meaning, and continue using the word to mean, "Someone who loves to - program and enjoys being clever about it." - - The collapse of the community - - The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital - discontinued the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, elegant and powerful - in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address spaces - that were becoming feasible in the 80s. This meant that nearly all of - the programs composing ITS were obsolete. - - The AI lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. In - 1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of the - hackers from the AI lab, and the depopulated community was unable to - maintain itself. (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these - events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its - prime.) When the AI lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators - decided to use Digital's non-free timesharing system instead of ITS. - - The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had - their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you - had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy. - - This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not - to help your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule - made by the owners of proprietary software was, "If you share with your - neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make - them." - - The idea that the proprietary-software social system--the system that - says you are not allowed to share or change software--is antisocial, - that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise - to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on - dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the - idea surprising may have taken proprietary-software social system as - given, or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software - businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince - people that there is only one way to look at the issue. - - When software publishers talk about "enforcing" their "rights" or - "stopping piracy", what they actually *say* is secondary. The real - message of these statements is in the unstated assumptions they take - for granted; the public is supposed to accept them uncritically. So - let's examine them. - - One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable - natural right to own software and thus have power over all its users. - (If this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to - the public, we could not object.) Interestingly, the US Constitution - and legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right, - but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users' - natural right to copy. - - Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about - software is what jobs it allows you to do--that we computer users - should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have. - - A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would - never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not - offer a company power over the users of the program. This assumption - may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement - demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without putting - chains on it. - - If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues based - on ordinary common-sense morality while placing the users first, we - arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be free to - modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because - helping other people is the basis of society. - - There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning - behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web page, - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html. - - A stark moral choice. - - With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. Instead, - I faced a stark moral choice. - - The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing - nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker. - Most likely I would also be developing software that was released under - nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other people - to betray their fellows too. - - I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing - code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on - years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life - making the world a worse place. - - I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure - agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI lab the - source code for the control program for our printer. (The lack of - certain features in this program made use of the printer extremely - frustrating.) So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure agreements - were innocent. I was very angry when he refused to share with us; I - could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone else. - - Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the - computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they would - still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and restricting - computer users, but it would happen nonetheless. - - So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the - good. I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could - write, so as to make a community possible once again? - - The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system. - That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an - operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run - the computer at all. With a free operating system, we could again have - a community of cooperating hackers--and invite anyone to join. And - anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by - conspiring to deprive his or her friends. - - As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job. - So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I - was elected to do the job. I chose to make the system compatible with - Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily - switch to it. The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as - a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix." - - An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run - other programs. In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the name - included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters, - debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more. ITS had them, Multics - had them, VMS had them, and Unix had them. The GNU operating system - would include them too. - - Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1): - - If I am not for myself, who will be for me? - If I am only for myself, what am I? - If not now, when? - - The decision to start the GNU project was based on a similar spirit. - - (1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I - sometimes find I admire something one of them has said. - - Free as in freedom - - The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to - do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition - of free software: a program is free software, for you, a particular - user, if: - * You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose. - * You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To - make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to - the source code, since making changes in a program without having - the source code is exceedingly difficult.) - * You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a - fee. - * You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the - program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements. - - Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction - between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell - copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are - important for the community, and selling them is an important way to - raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which - people are not free to include on these collections is not free - software. - - Because of the ambiguity of "free", people have long looked for - alternatives, but no one has found a suitable alternative. The English - Language has more words and nuances than any other, but it lacks a - simple, unambiguous, word that means "free", as in - freedom--"unfettered" being the word that comes closest in meaning. - Such alternatives as "liberated", "freedom", and "open" have either the - wrong meaning or some other disadvantage. - - GNU software and the GNU system - - Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into - reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software - wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very - beginning to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years - later, I decided to use the X Window System rather than writing another - window system for GNU. - - Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the - collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that - are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and - projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are - free software. - - Commencing the project - - In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software. - Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere - with distributing GNU as free software. If I had remained on the staff, - MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed their - own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a proprietary - software package. I had no intention of doing a large amount of work - only to see it become useless for its intended purpose: creating a new - software-sharing community. - - However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly - invited me to keep using the lab's facilities. - - The first steps - - Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free - University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for "free" - is written with a V.) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple - languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple target - machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it. - - He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the - compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU - project would be a multi-language, multi-platform compiler. - - Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained - the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multi-platform - compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was - written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a - system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting - it to the Motorola 68000 computer. But I had to give that up when I - discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack space, and - the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k. - - I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the - entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree - into a chain of "instructions", and then generating the whole output - file, without ever freeing any storage. At this point, I concluded I - would have to write a new compiler from scratch. That new compiler is - now known as GCC; none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, but I - managed to adapt and use the C front end that I had written. But that - was some years later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs. - - GNU Emacs - - I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was - beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to - do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done - my editing on other kinds of machines until then. - - At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the - question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous - ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer, - prep.ai.mit.edu, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site; - when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name - to our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested people - were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So the - question was, what would I say to them? - - I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a - copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10 - Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back - with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make - money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to - whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free - software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that - today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems. - - Is a program free for every user? - - If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author, - this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone - who has a copy of it. For example, public domain software (software - that is not copyrighted) is free software; but anyone can make a - proprietary modified version of it. Likewise, many free programs are - copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive licenses which - allow proprietary modified versions. - - The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System. - Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a permissive - license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies. They added - X to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, and covered - by the same nondisclosure agreement. These copies of X were no more - free software than Unix was. - - The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a - problem--they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was not - freedom, just "success", defined as "having many users." They did not - care whether these users had freedom, only that they should be - numerous. - - This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of - counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question, - "Is this program free?" If you judged based on the freedom provided by - the distribution terms of the MIT release, you would say that X was - free software. But if you measured the freedom of the average user of - X, you would have to say it was proprietary software. Most X users were - running the proprietary versions that came with Unix systems, not the - free version. - - Copyleft and the GNU GPL - - The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So - we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software - from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is - called "copyleft".(1) - - Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of - its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it - becomes a means of keeping software free. - - The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run - the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute - modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions of their own. - Thus, the crucial freedoms that define "free software" are guaranteed - to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights. - - For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This - ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if - it is published. When programmers who have jobs as programmers - volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their - employers from saying, "You can't share those changes, because we are - going to use them to make our proprietary version of the program." - - The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to - ensure freedom for every user of the program. The companies that - privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to - their systems and hardware. These changes were small compared with the - great extent of X, but they were not trivial. If making changes were an - excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone to take - advantage of the excuse. - - A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code. - Such a combination would inevitably be non-free; whichever freedoms are - lacking for the non-free part would be lacking for the whole as well. - To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to sink a - ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this - hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program must be - such that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted. - - The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU - software is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. We - have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances. - GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of - copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary for - manuals.(2) - - (1) In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me - a letter. On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings, - including this one: "Copyleft--all rights reversed." I used the word - "copyleft" to name the distribution concept I was developing at the - time. - - (2) We now use the GNU Free Documentation License for documentation. - - The Free Software Foundation - - As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved in - the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding once - again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt - charity for free software development. The FSF also took over the Emacs - tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding other free - software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling free - manuals as well. - - The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from - sales--of copies of free software, and of other related services. Today - it sells CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed - manuals (all with freedom to redistribute and modify), and Deluxe - Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software for your - choice of platform). - - Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a number - of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the C library and the - shell. The GNU C library is what every program running on a GNU/Linux - system uses to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a member of - the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath. The shell used on - most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again Shell(1), which was - developed by FSF employee Brian Fox. - - We funded development of these programs because the GNU project was not - just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a complete - operating system, and these programs were needed for that goal. - - (1) "Bourne again Shell" is a joke on the name ``Bourne Shell'', which - was the usual shell on Unix. - - Free software support - - The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business - practice, but it is not against business. When businesses respect the - users' freedom, we wish them success. - - Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software - business. When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way to - make a living. I found it in selling services relating to the free - software I had developed. This included teaching, for subjects such as - how to program GNU Emacs and how to customize GCC, and software - development, mostly porting GCC to new platforms. - - Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a - number of corporations. Some distribute free software collections on - CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user - questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features. We are even - beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free - software products. - - Watch out, though--a number of companies that associate themselves with - the term "open source" actually base their business on non-free - software that works with free software. These are not free software - companies, they are proprietary software companies whose products tempt - users away from freedom. They call these "value added", which reflects - the values they would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If - we value freedom more, we should call them "freedom subtracted" - products. - - Technical goals - - The principal goal of GNU was to be free software. Even if GNU had no - technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage, - allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the - user's freedom. - - But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to the - work--for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid - arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes - wherever that made sense. - - In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by - deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit - machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished), - and to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a - megabyte. In programs for which handling very large files was not - crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into - core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O. - - These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix - counterparts in reliability and speed. - - Donated computers - - As the GNU project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate - machines running UNIX to the project. These were very useful, because - the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a UNIX - system, and replace the components of that system one by one. But they - raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a copy of - UNIX at all. - - UNIX was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU project's - philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software. But, - applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence - in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to use - a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free - replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package. - - But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil. Today - we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them - with free operating systems. If we could not replace a machine's - operating system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead. - - The GNU Task List - - As the GNU project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system - components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to make - a list of the remaining gaps. We used it to recruit developers to write - the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU task list. In - addition to missing Unix components, we listed added various other - useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly - complete system ought to have. - - Today, hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU task list--those - jobs have been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But the list is - full of projects that some might call "applications". Any program that - appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be a useful thing to - add to an operating system. - - Even games are included in the task list--and have been since the - beginning. Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But - compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the list - of games that Unix had. Instead, we listed a spectrum of different - kinds of games that users might like. - - The GNU Library GPL - - The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU - Library General Public License(1), which gives permission to link - proprietary software with the library. Why make this exception? - - It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says - proprietary software products are entitled to include our code. (Why - contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?) Using - the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of - strategy. - - The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler - comes with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available only - to free software would not have given free software any advantage--it - would only have discouraged use of our library. - - One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this - includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library. So the - distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is - possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system. There is - no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU system, - but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more to - discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of free - applications. - - That is why using the Library GPL is a good strategy for the C library. - For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be considered on a - case-by-case basis. When a library does a special job that can help - write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under the GPL, - limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other free - software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary - software. - - Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide - command-line editing for BASH. Readline is released under the ordinary - GNU GPL, not the Library GPL. This probably does reduce the amount - Readline is used, but that is no loss for us. Meanwhile, at least one - useful application has been made free software specifically so it could - use Readline, and that is a real gain for the community. - - Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides; - free software developers need to make advantages for each other. I hope - some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries that - have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing useful - modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and adding up - to a major advantage for further free software development. - - (1) This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License, - to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it. - See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html. - - Scratching an itch? - - Eric Raymond says that "Every good work of software starts by - scratching a developer's personal itch." Maybe that happens sometimes, - but many essential pieces of GNU software were developed in order to - have a complete free operating system. They come from a vision and a - plan, not from impulse. - - For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system - needs a C library, the Bourne-Again Shell (bash) because a Unix-like - system needs a shell, and GNU tar because a Unix-like system needs a - tar program. The same is true for my own programs--the GNU C compiler, - GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make. - - Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our - freedom. Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program, which - had been lost to the community because of the LZW patents. We found - people to develop LessTif, and more recently started GNOME and Harmony, - to address the problems caused by certain proprietary libraries (see - below). We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to replace popular - non-free encryption software, because users should not have to choose - between privacy and freedom. - - Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the - work, and many features were added to them by various people for the - sake of their own needs and interests. But that is not why the programs - exist. - - Unexpected developments - - At the beginning of the GNU project, I imagined that we would develop - the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole. That is not how it - happened. - - Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix - system, each component could run on Unix systems, long before a - complete GNU system existed. Some of these programs became popular, and - users began extending them and porting them---to the various - incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as well. - - The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both - funds and contributors to the GNU project. But it probably also delayed - completion of a minimal working system by several years, as GNU - developers' time was put into maintaining these ports and adding - features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write one - missing component after another. - - The GNU Hurd - - By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing - component was the kernel. We had decided to implement our kernel as a - collection of server processes running on top of Mach. Mach is a - microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University and then at the - University of Utah; the GNU HURD is a collection of servers (or ``herd - of gnus'') that run on top of Mach, and do the various jobs of the Unix - kernel. The start of development was delayed as we waited for Mach to - be released as free software, as had been promised. - - One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the - hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a - source-level debugger to do it with. This part of the job had been done - already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the HURD servers as user - programs, with GDB. But it took a long time to make that possible, and - the multi-threaded servers that send messages to each other have turned - out to be very hard to debug. Making the HURD work solidly has - stretched on for many years. - - Alix - - The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the HURD. Its - original name was Alix--named after the woman who was my sweetheart at - the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her - name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a - joke, she told her friends, "Someone should name a kernel after me." I - said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix. - - It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), the main - developer of the kernel, preferred the name HURD, and redefined Alix to - refer to a certain part of the kernel--the part that would trap system - calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers. - - Ultimately, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name; - independently, the HURD design was changed so that the C library would - send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component - disappear from the design. - - But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name - Alix in the HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the - name did its job. - - Linux and GNU/Linux - - The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use. Fortunately, another - kernel is available. In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a - Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. Around 1992, combining - Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete - free operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in itself, - of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a version of - the GNU system today. - - We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a - combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel. - - Challenges in our future - - We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free - software. This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable. Several - challenges make the future of free software uncertain; meeting them - will require steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting for - years. It will require the kind of determination that people display - when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take it away. - - The following four sections discuss these challenges. - - Secret hardware - - Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware - specifications secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers so - that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware. We have complete free - systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot support - tomorrow's computers. - - There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do - reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The rest - of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software; as - our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a - self-defeating policy. - - Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with - sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes--if we have built up a - strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and - non-free drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend - extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers? - Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread. - - Non-free libraries - - A non-free library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap - for free software developers. The library's attractive features are the - bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your - program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system. (Strictly - speaking, we could include your program, but it won't run with the - library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses the proprietary - library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers - into the trap. - - The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the - 80s. Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was clear - what problem Motif would cause for them later on. The GNU Project - responded in two ways: by asking individual free software projects to - support the free X toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and by asking for - someone to write a free replacement for Motif. The job took many years; - LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became powerful enough to - support most Motif applications only in 1997. - - Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called Qt, - was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE. - - Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not use - the library. However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux systems - who were not strict about sticking with free software added KDE to - their systems--producing a system with more capabilities, but less - freedom. The KDE group was actively encouraging more programmers to use - Qt, and millions of new "Linux users" had never been exposed to the - idea that there was a problem in this. The situation appeared grim. - - The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: GNOME - and Harmony. - - GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU's desktop - project. Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the - support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop - facilities, but using free software exclusively. It has technical - advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not just - C++. But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of any - non-free software. - - Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it - possible to run KDE software without using Qt. - - In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license - which, when carried out, should make Qt free software. There is no way - to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the community's - firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was non-free. (The - new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable to - avoid using Qt.) - - [Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU - GPL, which essentially solved this problem.] - - How will we respond to the next tempting non-free library? Will the - whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will - many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major - problem? Our future depends on our philosophy. - - Software patents - - The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put - algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty - years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983, - and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed - GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was - removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit. - - There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a - patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job. - But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a - patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users - want. What will we do when this happens? - - Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with - free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the - patented features. But those who value free software because they - expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure - when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the - practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development (1), - and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop - there. We must talk about freedom and principle. - - (1) It would have been clearer to write `of the "bazaar" model', since - that was the alternative that was new and initially controversial. - - Free documentation - - The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the - software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in - our systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software - package; when an important free software package does not come with a - good free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today. - - Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not - price. The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for - free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms. - Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line - and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the - program. - - Permission for modification is crucial too. As a general rule, I don't - believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify - all sorts of articles and books. For example, I don't think you or I - are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which - describe our actions and our views. - - But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial - for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right - to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are - conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide - accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual - which does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the - job, does not fill our community's needs. - - Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem. For - example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright - notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok. It is - also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that - they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be - deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical - topics. These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they - don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to fit - the modified program. In other words, they don't block the free - software community from making full use of the manual. - - However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of - the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media, - through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do obstruct - the community, the manual is not free, and we need another manual. - - Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to - produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends - on philosophy. - - We must talk about freedom - - Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux - systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat Linux. Free software has - developed such practical advantages that users are flocking to it for - purely practical reasons. - - The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing - free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more - ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software - instead of proprietary software products. - - But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the - philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble. Our ability to - meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to - stand firm for freedom. To make sure our community has this will, we - need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the - community. - - But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our - community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of - our community. We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts - in balance. - - "Open Source" - - Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a - part of the community decided to stop using the term "free software" - and say "open source software" instead. - - Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of "free" with - "gratis"--a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit - of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU - project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many - of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above - community, above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of "open source" focuses - on the potential to make high quality, powerful software, but shuns the - ideas of freedom, community, and principle. - - The "Linux" magazines are a clear example of this--they are filled with - advertisements for proprietary software that works with GNU/Linux. When - the next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines warn programmers to - stay away from it, or will they run ads for it? - - The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways; - all else being equal, it is useful. But winning their support by - speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it - makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education even - worse. - - "Free software" and "open source" describe the same category of - software, more or less, but say different things about the software, - and about values. The GNU Project continues to use the term "free - software", to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is - important. - - Try! - - Yoda's philosophy ("There is no `try'") sounds neat, but it doesn't - work for me. I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I - could do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the - goal if I did. But I tried anyway, because there was no one but me - between the enemy and my city. Surprising myself, I have sometimes - succeeded. - - Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen. Then I found another - threatened city, and got ready for another battle. Over time, I've - learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my city, - calling on other hackers to come and join me. - - Nowadays, often I'm not the only one. It is a relief and a joy when I - see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize, - this city may survive--for now. But the dangers are greater each year, - and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community. We can't take - the future of freedom for granted. Don't take it for granted! If you - want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to defend it. - - Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Stallman - - Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted - in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. +<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html> diff --git a/etc/WHY-FREE b/etc/WHY-FREE index 0678d99ddb..a70232d84a 100644 --- a/etc/WHY-FREE +++ b/etc/WHY-FREE @@ -1,244 +1,8 @@ - Why Software Should Not Have Owners +Why Software Should Not Have Owners - by Richard Stallman +Note added March 2014: -Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it -easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this -easier for all of us. +This file is obsolete and will be removed in future. +Please update any references to use -Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives -software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's -potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be -the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use. - -The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass -production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology -because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not -take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did -not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and -few readers were sued for that. - -Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when -information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with -others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like -copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian -measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four -practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA): - -* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners -to help your friend. - -* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and -colleagues. - -* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are -told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying. - -* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people -such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not -accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities -unguarded and failing to censor their use. - -All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, -where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, -and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it -from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the -motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in -the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, -not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no -matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness. - -Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power -to control how we use information: - -* Name calling. - -Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert -terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a -certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between -programs and physical objects. - -Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about -whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They -don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners -ask us to apply them anyway. - -* Exaggeration. - -Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy -programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the -owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who -made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner. - -A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought -copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every -one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly. - -* The law. - -Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh -penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the -suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of -morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties -as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone. - -This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical -thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway. - -It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American -should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many -states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only -racists would say sitting there was wrong. - -* Natural rights. - -Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have -written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and -interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone -else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically -companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are -expected to ignore this discrepancy.) - -To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more -important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author -myself, call it bunk. - -But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the -natural rights claims for two reasons. - -One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I -cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from -eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material -interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest -distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance. - -But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly -and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend -affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't -have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should. - -The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights -for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society. - -As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural -rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US -Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits* -a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says -that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of -copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright -does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is -intended as a means of modifying their behavior. - -The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts -into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be -justified for the public's sake. - -* Economics. - -The final argument made for having owners of software is that this -leads to production of more software. - -Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach -to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of -software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of -something if they are well paid for doing so. - -But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption -that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. -It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the -software has owners or not. - -People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our -experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. -You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or -for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. -Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, -the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it -once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot -directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards. - -This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an -owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with -it if you acquire it. - -But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and -what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not -just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages -software owners to produce something--but not what society really -needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us -all. - -What does society need? It needs information that is truly available -to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix, -adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners -typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change. - -Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users -lose freedom to control part of their own lives. - -And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary -cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that -helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our -society's civic spirit. - -This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not -price. - -The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue -is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of -writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software -than those people write, we need to raise funds. - -For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods -of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone -rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough -incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming. - -For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living -from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each -enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus -eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so -that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the -features I would otherwise have considered highest priority. - -The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software -development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all -of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from -donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three -employees who handle mail orders. - -Some free software developers make money by selling support services. -Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per -cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable -percentage for a software company. - -Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog -Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free -GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the -Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this -is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler. - -All these examples are small; the free software movement is still -small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio -in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity -without forcing each user to pay. - -As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary -program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to -refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But -underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A -person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and -this means saying "No" to proprietary software. - -You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other -people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the -software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be -able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. - -You deserve free software. - - -Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman -Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted -without royalty as long as this notice is preserved; -alteration is not permitted. +<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html> diff --git a/lisp/ChangeLog b/lisp/ChangeLog index 554f1df588..8a5e9497f2 100644 --- a/lisp/ChangeLog +++ b/lisp/ChangeLog @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ 2014-03-22 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> + * startup.el (fancy-startup-text): + * help.el (describe-gnu-project): Visit online info about GNU project. + * help-fns.el (help-fns--interactive-only): New function. (help-fns-describe-function-functions): Add the above function. * simple.el (beginning-of-buffer, end-of-buffer, insert-buffer) diff --git a/lisp/help.el b/lisp/help.el index 6f096c4844..4434ce27bd 100644 --- a/lisp/help.el +++ b/lisp/help.el @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ ;;; help.el --- help commands for Emacs -;; Copyright (C) 1985-1986, 1993-1994, 1998-2014 Free Software -;; Foundation, Inc. +;; Copyright (C) 1985-1986, 1993-1994, 1998-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ;; Maintainer: emacs-devel@gnu.org ;; Keywords: help, internal @@ -293,10 +292,11 @@ If that doesn't give a function, return nil." (interactive) (view-help-file "COPYING")) +;; Maybe this command should just be removed. (defun describe-gnu-project () - "Display info on the GNU project." + "Browse online information on the GNU project." (interactive) - (view-help-file "THE-GNU-PROJECT")) + (browse-url "http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html")) (define-obsolete-function-alias 'describe-project 'describe-gnu-project "22.2") diff --git a/lisp/startup.el b/lisp/startup.el index 129b54d974..a37245ae01 100644 --- a/lisp/startup.el +++ b/lisp/startup.el @@ -1400,8 +1400,9 @@ If this is nil, no message will be displayed." `("GNU/Linux" ,(lambda (_button) (browse-url "http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html")) "Browse http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html") - `("GNU" ,(lambda (_button) (describe-gnu-project)) - "Display info on the GNU project"))) + `("GNU" ,(lambda (_button) + (browse-url "http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html")) + "Browse http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html"))) " operating system.\n\n" :face variable-pitch :link ("Emacs Tutorial" ,(lambda (_button) (help-with-tutorial))) diff --git a/src/ChangeLog b/src/ChangeLog index 94b48f64de..efb96ce849 100644 --- a/src/ChangeLog +++ b/src/ChangeLog @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@ +2014-03-22 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> + + * callproc.c (init_callproc): In etc, look for NEWS rather than GNU. + 2014-03-22 Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org> * process.c (conv_sockaddr_to_lisp): When extracting the string - names of AF_LOCAL sockets, stop before reading uninitialized - memory. + names of AF_LOCAL sockets, stop before reading uninitialized memory. 2014-03-21 YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp> diff --git a/src/callproc.c b/src/callproc.c index 2ce4a7dcc0..0831291b0d 100644 --- a/src/callproc.c +++ b/src/callproc.c @@ -1617,13 +1617,13 @@ init_callproc (void) srcdir = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("../src/"), lispdir); - tem = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("GNU"), Vdata_directory); + tem = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("NEWS"), Vdata_directory); tem1 = Ffile_exists_p (tem); if (!NILP (Fequal (srcdir, Vinvocation_directory)) || NILP (tem1)) { Lisp_Object newdir; newdir = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("../etc/"), lispdir); - tem = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("GNU"), newdir); + tem = Fexpand_file_name (build_string ("NEWS"), newdir); tem1 = Ffile_exists_p (tem); if (!NILP (tem1)) Vdata_directory = newdir; |