summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html508
1 files changed, 508 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8626a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html
@@ -0,0 +1,508 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/byte-interview.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman</h2>
+
+<p>Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards</p>
+
+<h3>Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain Unix-compatible
+ software system with BYTE editors (July 1986) </h3>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman has undertaken probably the most ambitious free
+software development project to date, the GNU system. In his GNU
+Manifesto, published in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal,
+Stallman described GNU as a &ldquo;complete Unix-compatible software
+system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone
+who can use it&hellip; Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to
+obtain good system software free, just like air.&rdquo; (GNU is an
+acronym for GNU's Not Unix; the &ldquo;G&rdquo; is pronounced.)</p>
+
+<p>Stallman is widely known as the author of EMACS, a powerful text
+editor that he developed at the <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute
+of Technology">MIT</abbr> Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It is
+no coincidence that the first piece of software produced as part of
+the GNU project was a new implementation of EMACS. GNU EMACS has
+already achieved a reputation as one of the best implementations of
+EMACS currently available at any price.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: We read your GNU Manifesto in the March 1985
+issue of Dr. Dobb's. What has happened since? Was that really the
+beginning, and how have you progressed since then?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The publication in Dr. Dobb's wasn't the beginning of the
+project. I wrote the GNU Manifesto when I was getting ready to start the
+project, as a proposal to ask computer manufacturers for funding. They
+didn't want to get involved, and I decided that rather than spend my time
+trying to pursue funds, I ought to spend it writing code. The manifesto was
+published about a year and a half after I had written it, when I had barely
+begun distributing the GNU EMACS. Since that time, in addition to making
+GNU EMACS more complete and making it run on many more computers, I have
+nearly finished the optimizing C compiler and all the other software that
+is needed for running C programs. This includes a source-level debugger
+that has many features that the other source-level debuggers on Unix don't
+have. For example, it has convenience variables within the debugger so you
+can save values, and it also has a history of all the values that you have
+printed out, making it tremendously easier to chase around list structures.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: You have finished an editor that is now widely distributed and you
+are about to finish the compiler.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I expect that it will be finished this October.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What about the kernel?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm currently planning to start with the kernel that was written
+at MIT and was released to the public recently with the idea that I would
+use it. This kernel is called TRIX; it's based on remote procedure call. I
+still need to add compatibility for a lot of the features of Unix which it
+doesn't have currently. I haven't started to work on that yet. I'm
+finishing the compiler before I go to work on the kernel. I am also going
+to have to rewrite the file system. I intend to make it failsafe just by
+having it write blocks in the proper order so that the disk structure is
+always consistent. Then I want to add version numbers. I have a complicated
+scheme to reconcile version numbers with the way people usually use Unix.
+You have to be able to specify filenames without version numbers, but you
+also have to be able to specify them with explicit version numbers, and
+these both need to work with ordinary Unix programs that have not been
+modified in any way to deal with the existence of this feature. I think I
+have a scheme for doing this, and only trying it will show me whether it
+really does the job.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you have a brief description you can give us as to how GNU as a
+system will be superior to other systems? We know that one of your goals is
+to produce something that is compatible with Unix. But at least in the area
+of file systems you have already said that you are going to go beyond Unix
+and produce something that is better.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The C compiler will produce better code and run faster. The
+debugger is better. With each piece I may or may not find a way to improve
+it. But there is no one answer to this question. To some extent I am
+getting the benefit of reimplementation, which makes many systems much
+better. To some extent it's because I have been in the field a long time
+and worked on many other systems. I therefore have many ideas to bring to
+bear. One way in which it will be better is that practically everything in
+the system will work on files of any size, on lines of any size, with any
+characters appearing in them. The Unix system is very bad in that regard.
+It's not anything new as a principle of software engineering that you
+shouldn't have arbitrary limits. But it just was the standard practice in
+writing Unix to put those in all the time, possibly just because they were
+writing it for a very small computer. The only limit in the GNU system is
+when your program runs out of memory because it tried to work on too much
+data and there is no place to keep it all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: And that isn't likely to be hit if you've got virtual memory. You may
+just take forever to come up with the solution.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Actually these limits tend to hit in a time long before you take
+forever to come up with the solution.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Can you say something about what types of machines and environments
+GNU EMACS in particular has been made to run under? It's now running on
+VAXes; has it migrated in any form to personal computers?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm not sure what you mean by personal computers. For example, is
+a Sun a personal computer? GNU EMACS requires at least a megabyte of
+available memory and preferably more. It is normally used on machines that
+have virtual memory. Except for various technical problems in a few C
+compilers, almost any machine with virtual memory and running a fairly
+recent version of Unix will run GNU EMACS, and most of them currently do.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Has anyone tried to port it to Ataris or Macintoshes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The Atari 1040ST still doesn't have quite enough memory. The next
+Atari machine, I expect, will run it. I also think that future Ataris will
+have some forms of memory mapping. Of course, I am not designing the
+software to run on the kinds of computers that are prevalent today. I knew
+when I started this project it was going to take a few years. I therefore
+decided that I didn't want to make a worse system by taking on the
+additional challenge of making it run in the currently constrained
+environment. So instead I decided I'm going to write it in the way that
+seems the most natural and best. I am confident that in a couple of years
+machines of sufficient size will be prevalent. In fact, increases in memory
+size are happening so fast it surprises me how slow most of the people are
+to put in virtual memory; I think it is totally essential.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: I think people don't really view it as being necessary for
+single-user machines.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: They don't understand that single user doesn't mean single
+program. Certainly for any Unix-like system it's important to be able to
+run lots of different processes at the same time even if there is only one
+of you. You could run GNU EMACS on a nonvirtual-memory machine with enough
+memory, but you couldn't run the rest of the GNU system very well or a Unix
+system very well.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: How much of LISP is present in GNU EMACS? It occurred to me that it
+may be useful to use that as a tool for learning LISP.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: You can certainly do that. GNU EMACS contains a complete,
+although not very powerful, LISP system. It's powerful enough for writing
+editor commands. It's not comparable with, say, a Common LISP System,
+something you could really use for system programming, but it has all the
+things that LISP needs to have.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you have any predictions about when you would be likely to
+distribute a workable environment in which, if we put it on our machines or
+workstations, we could actually get reasonable work done without using
+anything other than code that you distribute?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: It's really hard to say. That could happen in a year, but of
+course it could take longer. It could also conceivably take less, but
+that's not too likely anymore. I think I'll have the compiler finished in a
+month or two. The only other large piece of work I really have to do is in
+the kernel. I first predicted GNU would take something like two years, but
+it has now been two and a half years and I'm still not finished. Part of
+the reason for the delay is that I spent a lot of time working on one
+compiler that turned out to be a dead end. I had to rewrite it completely.
+Another reason is that I spent so much time on GNU EMACS. I originally
+thought I wouldn't have to do that at all.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Tell us about your distribution scheme.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I don't put software or manuals in the public domain, and the
+reason is that I want to make sure that all the users get the freedom to
+share. I don't want anyone making an improved version of a program I wrote
+and distributing it as proprietary. I don't want that to ever be able to
+happen. I want to encourage the free improvements to these programs, and
+the best way to do that is to take away any temptation for a person to make
+improvements nonfree. Yes, a few of them will refrain from making
+improvements, but a lot of others will make the same improvements and
+they'll make them free.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: And how do you go about guaranteeing that?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I do this by copyrighting the programs and putting on a notice
+giving people explicit permission to copy the programs and change them but
+only on the condition that they distribute under the same terms that I
+used, if at all. You don't have to distribute the changes you make to any
+of my programs&mdash;you can just do it for yourself, and you don't have to give
+it to anyone or tell anyone. But if you do give it to someone else, you
+have to do it under the same terms that I use.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C
+compiler?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the
+compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in
+fact I don't try to. I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary
+products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to
+stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do your restrictions apply if people take pieces of your code to
+produce other things as well?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes, if they incorporate with changes any sizable piece. If it
+were two lines of code, that's nothing; copyright doesn't apply to that.
+Essentially, I have chosen these conditions so that first there is a
+copyright, which is what all the software hoarders use to stop everybody
+from doing anything, and then I add a notice giving up part of those
+rights. So the conditions talk only about the things that copyright applies
+to. I don't believe that the reason you should obey these conditions is
+because of the law. The reason you should obey is because an upright person
+when he distributes software encourages other people to share it further.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: In a sense you are enticing people into this mode of thinking by
+providing all of these interesting tools that they can use but only if they
+buy into your philosophy.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes. You could also see it as using the legal system that
+software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the
+public from them.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Given that manufacturers haven't wanted to fund the project, who do
+you think will use the GNU system when it is done?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I have no idea, but it is not an important question. My purpose
+is to make it possible for people to reject the chains that come with
+proprietary software. I know that there are people who want to do that.
+Now, there may be others who don't care, but they are not my concern. I
+feel a bit sad for them and for the people that they influence. Right now a
+person who perceives the unpleasantness of the terms of proprietary
+software feels that he is stuck and has no alternative except not to use a
+computer. Well, I am going to give him a comfortable alternative.</p>
+
+<p>Other people may use the GNU system simply because it is technically
+superior. For example, my C compiler is producing about as good a code as I
+have seen from any C compiler. And GNU EMACS is generally regarded as being
+far superior to the commercial competition. And GNU EMACS was not funded by
+anyone either, but everyone is using it. I therefore think that many people
+will use the rest of the GNU system because of its technical advantages.
+But I would be doing a GNU system even if I didn't know how to make it
+technically better because I want it to be socially better. The GNU project
+is really a social project. It uses technical means to make a change in
+society.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Then it is fairly important to you that people adopt GNU. It is not
+just an academic exercise to produce this software to give it away to
+people. You hope it will change the way the software industry operates.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes. Some people say no one will ever use it because it doesn't
+have some attractive corporate logo on it, and other people say that they
+think it is tremendously important and everyone's going to want to use it.
+I have no way of knowing what is really going to happen. I don't know any
+other way to try to change the ugliness of the field that I find myself in,
+so this is what I have to do.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Can you address the implications? You obviously feel that this is an
+important political and social statement.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: It is a change. I'm trying to change the way people approach
+knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge,
+to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop
+other people from sharing it, is sabotage. It is an activity that benefits
+the person that does it at the cost of impoverishing all of society. One
+person gains one dollar by destroying two dollars' worth of wealth. I think
+a person with a conscience wouldn't do that sort of thing except perhaps if
+he would otherwise die. And of course the people who do this are fairly
+rich; I can only conclude that they are unscrupulous. I would like to see
+people get rewards for writing free software and for encouraging other
+people to use it. I don't want to see people get rewards for writing
+proprietary software because that is not really a contribution to society.
+The principle of capitalism is the idea that people manage to make money by
+producing things and thereby are encouraged to do what is useful,
+automatically, so to speak. But that doesn't work when it comes to owning
+knowledge. They are encouraged to do not really what's useful, and what
+really is useful is not encouraged. I think it is important to say that
+information is different from material objects like cars and loaves of
+bread because people can copy it and share it on their own and, if nobody
+attempts to stop them, they can change it and make it better for
+themselves. That is a useful thing for people to do. This isn't true of
+loaves of bread. If you have one loaf of bread and you want another, you
+can't just put your loaf of bread into a bread copier. You can't make
+another one except by going through all the steps that were used to make
+the first one. It therefore is irrelevant whether people are permitted to
+copy it&mdash;it's impossible.</p>
+
+<p>Books were printed only on printing presses until recently. It was
+possible to make a copy yourself by hand, but it wasn't practical because
+it took so much more work than using a printing press. And it produced
+something so much less attractive that, for all intents and purposes, you
+could act as if it were impossible to make books except by mass producing
+them. And therefore copyright didn't really take any freedom away from the
+reading public. There wasn't anything that a book purchaser could do that
+was forbidden by copyright.</p>
+
+<p>But this isn't true for computer programs. It's also not true for
+tape cassettes. It's partly false now for books, but it is still true
+that for most books it is more expensive and certainly a lot more work
+to Xerox them than to buy a copy, and the result is still less
+attractive. Right now we are in a period where the situation that
+made copyright harmless and acceptable is changing to a situation
+where copyright will become destructive and intolerable. So the
+people who are slandered as &ldquo;pirates&rdquo; are in fact the
+people who are trying to do something useful that they have been
+forbidden to do. The copyright laws are entirely designed to help
+people take complete control over the use of some information for
+their own good. But they aren't designed to help people who want to
+make sure that the information is accessible to the public and stop
+others from depriving the public. I think that the law should
+recognize a class of works that are owned by the public, which is
+different from public domain in the same sense that a public park is
+different from something found in a garbage can. It's not there for
+anybody to take away, it's there for everyone to use but for no one to
+impede. Anybody in the public who finds himself being deprived of the
+derivative work of something owned by the public should be able to sue
+about it.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: But aren't pirates interested in getting copies of programs because
+they want to use those programs, not because they want to use that
+knowledge to produce something better?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I don't see that that's the important distinction. More people
+using a program means that the program contributes more to society. You
+have a loaf of bread that could be eaten either once or a million times.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Some users buy commercial software to obtain support. How does your
+distribution scheme provide support?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I suspect that those users are misled and are not thinking
+clearly. It is certainly useful to have support, but when they start
+thinking about how that has something to do with selling software or with
+the software being proprietary, at that point they are confusing
+themselves. There is no guarantee that proprietary software will receive
+good support. Simply because sellers say that they provide support, that
+doesn't mean it will be any good. And they may go out of business. In fact,
+people think that GNU EMACS has better support than commercial EMACSes. One
+of the reasons is that I'm probably a better hacker than the people who
+wrote the other EMACSes, but the other reason is that everyone has sources
+and there are so many people interested in figuring out how to do things
+with it that you don't have to get your support from me. Even just the free
+support that consists of my fixing bugs people report to me and
+incorporating that in the next release has given people a good level of
+support. You can always hire somebody to solve a problem for you, and when
+the software is free you have a competitive market for the support. You can
+hire anybody. I distribute a service list with EMACS, a list of people's
+names and phone numbers and what they charge to provide support.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you collect their bug fixes?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Well, they send them to me. I asked all the people who wanted to
+be listed to promise that they would never ask any of their customers to
+keep secret whatever they were told or any changes they were given to the
+GNU software as part of that support.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: So you can't have people competing to provide support based on their
+knowing the solution to some problem that somebody else doesn't know.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: No. They can compete based on their being clever and more likely
+to find the solution to your problem, or their already understanding more
+of the common problems, or knowing better how to explain to you what you
+should do. These are all ways they can compete. They can try to do better,
+but they cannot actively impede their competitors.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: I suppose it's like buying a car. You're not forced to go back to the
+original manufacturer for support or continued maintenance.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Or buying a house&mdash;what would it be like if the only person who
+could ever fix problems with your house was the contractor who built it
+originally? That is the kind of imposition that's involved in proprietary
+software. People tell me about a problem that happens in Unix. Because
+manufacturers sell improved versions of Unix, they tend to collect fixes
+and not give them out except in binaries. The result is that the bugs don't
+really get fixed.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: They're all duplicating effort trying to solve bugs independently.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes. Here is another point that helps put the problem of
+proprietary information in a social perspective. Think about the liability
+insurance crisis. In order to get any compensation from society, an injured
+person has to hire a lawyer and split the money with that lawyer. This is a
+stupid and inefficient way of helping out people who are victims of
+accidents. And consider all the time that people put into hustling to take
+business away from their competition. Think of the pens that are packaged
+in large cardboard packages that cost more than the pen&mdash;just to make sure
+that the pen isn't stolen. Wouldn't it be better if we just put free pens
+on every street corner? And think of all the toll booths that impede the
+flow of traffic. It's a gigantic social phenomenon. People find ways of
+getting money by impeding society. Once they can impede society, they can
+be paid to leave people alone. The waste inherent in owning information
+will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference
+between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because
+it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends
+much time replicating what the next fellow is doing.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Like typing in copyright notices on the software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: More like policing everyone to make sure that they don't have
+forbidden copies of anything and duplicating all the work people have
+already done because it is proprietary.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right
+to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making
+my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that
+other people wrote. Lots of people send in $150 for GNU EMACS, but now this
+money goes to the Free Software Foundation that I started. The foundation
+doesn't pay me a salary because it would be a conflict of interest.
+Instead, it hires other people to work on GNU. As long as I can go on
+making a living by consulting I think that's the best way.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What is currently included in the official GNU distribution tape?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Right now the tape contains GNU EMACS
+(one version fits all computers); Bison, a program that
+replaces <abbr title="Yet Another Compiler
+Compiler">YACC</abbr>; MIT Scheme, which is Professor
+Sussman's super-simplified dialect of LISP; and Hack, a
+dungeon-exploring game similar to Rogue.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Does the printed manual come with the tape as well?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: No. Printed manuals cost $15 each or copy them yourself. Copy
+this interview and share it, too.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: How can you get a copy of that?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Write to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave.,
+Cambridge, MA 02139.</p>
+
+<p>[The current address (since 2005) is:
+ Free Software Foundation
+ 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor
+ Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
+ Voice: +1-617-542-5942
+ Fax: +1-617-542-2652]
+</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What are you going to do when you are done with the GNU system?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm not sure. Sometimes I think that what I'll go on to do is the
+same thing in other areas of software.</p>
+
+<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: So this is just the first of a whole series of assaults on the
+software industry?</p>
+
+<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I hope so. But perhaps what I'll do is just live a life of ease
+working a little bit of the time just to live. I don't have to live
+expensively. The rest of the time I can find interesting people to hang
+around with or learn to do things that I don't know how to do.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2020
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2020/07/01 15:25:22 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>