diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html | 740 |
1 files changed, 740 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..787898f --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html @@ -0,0 +1,740 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>The GNU Manifesto +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/manifesto.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>The GNU Manifesto</h2> + +<p> The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written +by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a> in 1985 to +ask for support in developing the GNU operating system. Part of the +text was taken from the original announcement of 1983. Through 1987, +it was updated in minor ways to account for developments; since then, +it seems best to leave it unchanged.</p> + +<p>Since that time, we have learned about certain common +misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes +added since 1993 help clarify these points.</p> + +<p>If you want to install the GNU/Linux system, we recommend you use +one of the <a href="/distros">100% free software GNU/Linux +distributions</a>. For how to contribute, +see <a href="/help/help.html">http://www.gnu.org/help</a>.</p> + +<p>The GNU Project is part of the Free Software Movement, a campaign +for <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">freedom for users of +software</a>. It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term +“open source”—that term was coined in 1998 by people +who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values. They +use it to promote an +<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">amoral approach</a> to the same field.</p> + +<h3 id="whats-gnu">What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!</h3> + +<p> + 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.<a href="#f1">(1)</a> Several +other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, +programs and equipment are greatly needed.</p> + +<p> + 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 online documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, +everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the <em>g</em> in the +word “GNU” when it is the name of this project.</p> + +<h3 id="why-write">Why I Must Write GNU</h3> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.<a href="#f2a">(2)</a></p> + +<h3 id="compatible">Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix</h3> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<h3 id="available">How GNU Will Be Available</h3> + +<p> + 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, +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a> +modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all +versions of GNU remain free.</p> + +<h3 id="why-help">Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help</h3> + +<p> + I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and +want to help.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<h3 id="contribute">How You Can Contribute</h3> + +<blockquote> +<p> +(Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the <a +href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects">High Priority Projects +list</a> and the <a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/people/?type_id=1">GNU Help +Wanted list</a>, the general task list for GNU software packages. For other +ways to help, see <a href="/help/help.html">the guide to helping +the GNU operating system</a>.) +</p> +</blockquote> + +<p> + I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and +money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.)</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<h3 id="benefit">Why All Computer Users Will Benefit</h3> + +<p> + Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system +software free, just like air.<a href="#f2">(3)</a></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as +breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.</p> + +<h3 id="rebutted-objections">Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals</h3> + +<p id="support"> +<strong>“Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means +they can't rely on any support.”</strong></p> + +<p> +<strong>“You have to charge for the program to pay for providing +the support.”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.<a href="#f3">(4)</a></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + Such services could be provided by companies that sell just +handholding 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.</p> + +<p id="advertising"> +<strong>“You cannot reach many people without advertising, and +you must charge for the program to support that.”</strong></p> + +<p> +<strong>“It's no use advertising a program people can get +free.”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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?<a href="#f4">(5)</a></p> + +<p id="competitive"> +<strong>“My company needs a proprietary operating system to get +a competitive edge.”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many +manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.<a href="#f5">(6)</a></p> + +<p id="deserve"> +<strong>“Don't programmers deserve a reward for their +creativity?”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p id="reward"> +<strong>“Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for +his creativity?”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p id="starve"> +<strong>“Won't programmers starve?”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. +It is the most common basis<a href="#f8">(7)</a> 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.)</p> + +<p id="right-to-control"> +<strong>“Don't people have a right to control how their +creativity is used?”</strong></p> + +<p> +“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.</p> + +<p> + People who have studied the issue of intellectual property +rights<a href="#f6">(8)</a> 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors +frequently copied other authors at length in works of nonfiction. 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.</p> + +<p> + 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?</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p id="competition"> +<strong>“Competition makes things get done +better.”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p id="stop-programming"> +<strong>“Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary +incentive?”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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 nonmonetary rewards: +fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a +reward in itself.</p> + +<p> + Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same +interesting work for a lot of money.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p id="desperate"> +<strong>“We need the programmers desperately. If they demand +that we stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.”</strong></p> + +<p> + You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. +Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!</p> + +<p id="living"> +<strong>“Programmers need to make a living somehow.”</strong></p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of +operating systems onto the new hardware.</p> + +<p> + The sale of teaching, handholding and maintenance services could +also employ programmers.</p> + +<p> + People with new ideas could distribute programs as +freeware<a href="#f7">(9)</a>, asking for donations from satisfied +users, or selling handholding services. I have met people who are +already working this way successfully.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + +<p> + The consequences:</p> + +<ul> +<li>The computer-using community supports software development.</li> +<li>This community decides what level of support is needed.</li> +<li>Users who care which projects their share is spent on can + choose this for themselves.</li> +</ul> +<p> + In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the +postscarcity 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.</p> + +<p> + 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.</p> + + +<h3 id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3> + +<!-- The anchors do not match the actual footnote numbers because of + revisions over time. And if a new footnote is added, the references + to existing footnotes that follow the new one must be changed. --> +<ol> +<li id="f1">The wording here was careless. The intention +was that nobody would have to pay for <b>permission</b> 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.</li> + +<li id="f2a">The expression “give away” is another +indication that I had not yet clearly separated the issue of price +from that of freedom. We now recommend avoiding this expression when +talking about free software. See +“<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#GiveAwaySoftware">Confusing +Words and Phrases</a>” for more explanation.</li> + +<li id="f2">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.</li> + +<li id="f3">Several such companies now exist.</li> + +<li id="f4">Although it is a +charity rather than a company, the Free Software Foundation for 10 years raised +most of its funds from its distribution service. You +can <a href="/order/order.html">order things from the FSF</a> +to support its work. +</li> + +<li id="f5">A group of computer companies pooled funds +around 1991 to support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.</li> + +<li id="f8">I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary +software was the most common basis for making money in software. +It seems that actually the most common business model was and is +development of custom software. That does not offer the possibility +of collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing real work +in order to keep getting income. The custom software business would +continue to exist, more or less unchanged, in a free software world. +Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid programmers would earn less +in a free software world.</li> + +<li id="f6">In the 1980s 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 <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">further explanation</a> of how +this term spreads confusion and bias.</li> + +<li id="f7">Subsequently we 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 +“<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Freeware">Confusing +Words and Phrases</a>” for more explanation.</li> + +</ol> + +</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 & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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 © 1985, 1993, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015 +Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p> +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. +<br /> +Modified versions may not be made. +</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2015/06/02 12:55:15 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |