summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html555
1 files changed, 555 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..58e62f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html
@@ -0,0 +1,555 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>The Hacker Community and Ethics
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-hack.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>The Hacker Community and Ethics: An Interview with Richard M. Stallman, 2002</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+<p><em>Published in Finnish in Tere Vad&eacute;n &amp; Richard
+M. Stallman: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100807063010/http://www.uta.fi/%7Efiteva/koodivapaaksi.html">
+Koodi vapaaksi - Hakkerietiikan vaativuus</a>, Tampere University
+Press. 2002, sivut 62-80.</em></p>
+
+<h3>Hackerism</h3>
+
+<p>Tere Vad&eacute;n (<b>TV</b>): One of the most striking features of your
+approach to the issues of technology and software and so on is that
+you consider ethical and social matters more important than possible
+technological advantages. While that maybe should be the norm, it
+unfortunately is not so. The main issues seems to be one of community;
+what kinds of communities different ways of using technology promote.
+Am I guessing right if I believe that you are thinking of ethical
+issues in terms of communities?</p>
+
+<p>Richard M. Stallman (<b>RMS</b>): Yes. The way I reached my
+conclusions about which freedoms are essential for using software, and
+which kinds of license requirements are acceptable, is by thinking
+about whether they would interfere with the kinds of use of the
+software that are necessary to have a functioning community.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> The idea of free software was born out of your
+experiences at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">
+MIT</abbr>, and how that community was infiltrated and in some sense
+destroyed by commercial interests.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Yes, that is correct. The hackers really enjoyed the freedom to
+share and change software; that was the basis for our free-wheeling
+community.</p>
+<p>
+<b>TV:</b> What does the word &lsquo;hacker&rsquo; mean to you,
+personally?</p>
+<p>
+<b>RMS:</b> It means someone who enjoys playful cleverness, especially
+in programming but other media are also possible. In the 14th century,
+Guillaume de Machaut wrote a palindromic three-part musical
+composition. It sounded good, too&mdash;I think I played in it once,
+because I still remember one of the parts. I think that was a good
+hack. I heard somewhere that J. S. Bach did something similar.<br />
+One possible arena for playful cleverness is breaking
+security. Hackers never had much respect for bureaucratic
+restrictions. If the computer was sitting idle because the
+administrators wouldn't let them use it, they would sometimes figure
+out how to bypass the obstacles and use it anyway. If this required
+cleverness, it would be fun in itself, as well as making it possible
+to do other hacking (for instance, useful work) on the computer
+instead of twiddling one's thumbs. But not all hackers did security
+breaking. Many never were interested in that.<br />
+On the Incompatible Timesharing System, the operating system developed
+by the AI lab's hackers, we made it unnecessary to break security: we
+simply did not implement security in the system. The hackers realized
+that security would be a mechanism for the administrators to dominate
+us. So we never gave them the means.</p>
+<p>
+<b>TV:</b> How about the concepts of freedom and community? There's
+this idea that freedom to distribute ideas, thoughts, recipes and
+software creates the best kinds of communities or at least better than
+those based on commercial limitations on distribution and sharing.</p>
+<p>
+<b>RMS:</b> I think it is a mistake to label these restrictions as
+&ldquo;commercial&rdquo;, because that pertains to the motive for the
+restrictions. The same restrictions, if imposed for a different
+motive, would do the same harm. What matters is the restrictions, not
+the motive. Commercial software can be free or nonfree, just as
+noncommercial software can be free or nonfree. It only depends on the
+license.</p>
+<p>
+<b>TV:</b> How would you delineate the distinction between the public
+(communal, freedom-based) and the commercial spheres?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Comparing free with commercial is like comparing happiness with
+purple. It doesn't make sense, because they are not answers to the same
+question. They are not alternatives. The meaningful comparison is
+between free and nonfree software.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> It seems that the distinction between &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; and &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is that the open source
+movement ultimately justifies the idea on utilitarian grounds; open
+source is the best way of producing functional software; while the
+ultimate justification for free software is non-calculative,
+non-utilitarian; freedom is unviolable. Is that a correct
+interpretation?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> More or less. I would say that freedom has value in
+itself, just as powerful reliable software does.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> But isn't there a problem here; one of the utilitarian
+calculations of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is that it is more
+profitable&mdash;in the sense of making more money or making better
+software&mdash;to use an open source license than a copyleft
+license. A company like Apple or Nokia will adapt open source up to
+point, precisely the point where making it more free would turn the
+profitability down.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I agree that it is wrong for these decisions (about
+your freedom and mine) to be made by the software developer for the
+sake of his profit, just as the decision about whether you and I have
+freedom of speech should not be made by some third party for his own
+interests.<br />
+I am not going to condemn someone who does the right thing for the
+wrong reason, but it is true that relying on people to respect our
+freedom because it is profitable for them to do so is not a reliable
+system for protecting our freedom. This is the reason why we must
+reduce the political power of business.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> The argument that a company would use, of course, is
+that the profit it creates ultimately benefits the whole society. How
+would you respond to that?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> That is a claim with no basis. A nonfree program can
+only benefit those who don't value their freedom, and thus serves as a
+temptation for people to give up their freedom. That is harmful to
+society.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> There is also this question of individual/private vs
+public/communal here. It is often in the interests of the individual to
+do something that threatens the community, threatens freedom.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I know. This is why we need to think about right and wrong in
+making our decisions, and also the reason why societies have a notion
+of punishing actions that hurt the community.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Now, somebody like Torvalds&mdash;and we don't
+necessarily have to use any names here&mdash;would probably share
+your enthusiasm about hackerism in the sense of playful cleverness,
+and would take that playful cleverness also to the area of being
+clever in making money and enjoying the good life. Actually that is
+what he hints at in a recent book called &ldquo;The Hacker
+Ethics&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> That is true. Just because someone enjoys hacking does
+not mean he has an ethical commitment to treating other people
+properly. Some hackers care about ethics&mdash;I do, for
+instance&mdash;but that is not part of being a hacker, it is a
+separate trait. Some stamp collectors care a lot about ethics, while
+other stamp collectors don't. It is the same for hackers.<br />
+I agree with the person who said that there is no hacker ethic, but
+rather a hacker aesthetic.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Now, if one wants to avoid the negative consequences of the
+profit-oriented business, it feels that one has to give the individual a
+good reason for not looking after only his or her own best. And that
+something, that reason, might be something in the public sphere.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Of course&mdash;but why are you treating this as if it
+were a new idea that can only be hinted at. This idea is thousands of
+years old. This is the basic idea of ethics.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> The question about hacker aesthetics&mdash;as you
+explained, there is no special hacker ethics, because a hacker can act
+ethically or unethically and nothing in hackerism itself necessitates
+ethical behaviour.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Hacking is not primarily about an ethical issue. It is an idea of
+what makes life meaningful. But he may be right that hacking tends to
+lead a significant number of hackers to think about ethical questions
+in a certain way. I would not want to completely deny all connection
+between hacking and views on ethics.</p>
+<p>
+Although someone said that there was a hacker aesthetic rather than a
+hacker ethic, I think &ldquo;aesthetic&rdquo; is not quite the right
+word either. An aesthetic is an idea of what is beautiful. This is an
+idea of what is exciting and meaningful. Is there a word for that? I
+can think of &ldquo;the hacker way&rdquo;, but that sounds rather
+pompous and new-age.</p>
+
+<h3>Community</h3>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Now that brings to mind several questions. For the
+first, one could maybe inquire after an ideal society or do forth, but
+let's leave that for the moment.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I approach these issues incrementally. I don't think I
+could try to design an ideal society and have any confidence in the
+conclusion. Attempts to propose a society quite different from the
+ones we know often tend to be disastrously flawed. So instead I
+propose local changes which I have some reason to believe are
+good. Note that I didn't imagine the free software community on my
+own&mdash;if I had, I would not be so confident it is a good idea. I
+knew that from having tried it.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Is there something that digitalization offers for
+community-building, something that other media (like printed books)
+could not offer, or does digitalization mean &lsquo;just&rsquo; and
+effectivization of existing means?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Computers and the web make it much easier to work
+collaboratively and continuing to improve publications. I think that
+this will become even more true in the future, as people develop
+better ways to do it. The proprietary mindset might as well be
+precisely calculated to deprive us of this benefit of the
+Internet.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Now, from a historical and philosophical perspective it
+seems that many a good invention or technological advance has resulted
+in the intensification of colonialization </p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> In general, technology is a good thing, and we
+shouldn't turn it down. Technology tends to cause cultural
+change. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and we should not condemn
+it in a blanket fashion. There are just certain specific kinds of
+cultural change that we need to oppose.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> I do not necessarily want to get stuck on this
+public/commercial issue, but if we say that we need communal
+agreements, values and systems that tone down the selfishness of the
+individual, and we say that the commercial world systematically has a
+tendency to promote selfishness, then I guess we have to conclude that
+there is a crucial distinction between the communal and the
+commercial?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I would agree. One person can belong to a community and
+work in a business at the same time. Nevertheless, there is a
+fundamental conflict between the communitarian attitude and the
+commercial attitude. I would not say that the communitarian attitude
+is good and the commercial attitude is bad. It makes no sense to aim
+to eliminate the commercial attitude, because that is simply
+selfishness, and selfishness is vital. People must be selfish to a
+certain extent, just as they ought to be altruistic to a certain
+extent. To abolish selfishness would not make sense, even if it were
+possible.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> I mean, in many ways one could say that the communities
+in the post-industrial countries these days are based on
+commercialism, i.e., people get together, work, communicate
+etc. mostly because of commercial reasons.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> This is a rather weak and ineffective kind of
+community, hardly worthy of the name.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, like you know, the research and university
+community is also very tightly bound to the economical interests of the
+nations, states and of the companies.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Universities ought to resist being turned to commercial
+purposes, for the sake of their integrity. They have failed to resist.
+People will always be partly selfish; to keep selfishness from
+engulfing society, we need unselfish institutions such as universities
+and democratic governments to balance the selfishness and put a check
+on it. The problem today is that organized selfishness is taking over
+society, crushing the other institutions that were designed to put a
+check on it.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> But, the counter argument goes, a free market economy
+that seeks to maximize profit, is the only way of producing wealth and
+functioning democratic communities.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> The free software community shows, as cooperatives in
+Sweden showed, that this is not true. There are other ways of
+producing wealth. But beyond that, producing wealth is not the be-all
+and end-all of a good society. There is no need to bend every aspect
+of life to maximizing the total wealth. The idea of sacrificing
+everything else to the production of wealth&mdash;regardless of who
+gets to share in it!&mdash;is exactly what's wrong with the WTO. As
+for producing functioning democratic communities, allowing commerce to
+dominate not only fails to do that, it is directly antagonistic to
+that.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> If ethics applies to everyone, and ethics is based on
+community, does this mean that there is an ideal community to which
+everyone should belong?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think that follows.</p>
+
+<h3>Copyleft</h3>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> The concept of copyleft is a brilliant tool for the
+communal purposes. Could you tell a little on how you arrived at the
+idea?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I had seen simple notices of the form &ldquo;verbatim
+copying permitted provided this notice is preserved&rdquo;, and
+investigated extending this to handle modification as well.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Let's take a case here. I can see that a free software
+developer might be able to make a living by doing free software,
+because people would pay for the software, pay for the manuals, pay
+for the joy of being a part of the community, and so on. I don't think
+that is impossible. The same might go for certain musicians, even
+scientists and so on. But how about a writer, a poet, even a musician
+that works in a very limited language area&mdash;say,
+Finnish. Making free software or free music or free poetry will not be
+a viable option, because the community is too small to support that
+kind of activity.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> The current system does rather a bad job of supporting
+these activities. To replace it with nothing at all would not make
+things much worse for these people. However, I think that voluntary
+methods of support could do just as good a job as the present
+system&mdash;maybe better.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> This seems to lead to some kind of
+&ldquo;americanization&rdquo; or &ldquo;anglization&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> You can't be serious, can you? Don't you realize that the
+media-copyright complex is fueling the americanization of culture
+around the world? Disconnecting that complex would do a lot to improve
+the situation.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> I was just thinking of the fact that in a small language
+area something like copyrights actually do some good for creative
+work.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Not much good, though. How many Finnish writers make a
+living from copyright today? Note that I don't advocate the simple and
+total abolition of copyright for all kinds of works. See my
+speech, <a href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html">Copyright
+and Globalization</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Globalization </h3>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> You have touched on some issues of globalization is some
+recent interviews. One of the problems is that copyright laws put many
+third world countries in an unfavourable position. Do you think that
+those countries should not follow the copyright laws?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> The US when it was a developing country did not
+recognize foreign copyrights. So why should anyone else? Of course, we
+know the reason why: it is part of a system of economic domination
+that the wealthiest business owners have imposed on the rest of the
+world.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, could one see this issue also in terms
+of communities? If I remember correctly, you have said that
+globalization in the economic sense does not seem to be a good way of
+promoting or distributing well-being.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> There is nothing wrong with globalization in the
+abstract. What makes today's form of globalization so bad is not
+really the global aspect of it. It is that the WTO/IMF system
+subordinates all other interests to the interests of business. Laws to
+protect the environment, public health, workers' rights, and the
+general standard of living, are regularly swept aside. The result is a
+major transfer of wealth from most people to business
+owners. Paradoxically, it seems to be accompanied by reduced growth as
+well.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>The best way to understand today's &ldquo;globalization&rdquo;
+is as a system to transfer power from democratic governments to
+business, which only incidentally happens to be global. Elimination of
+trade barriers could be a good thing if accompanied by global labor
+standards, global environmental standards, global health care, a
+global minimum wage (even if not uniform), and global income taxes. If
+these were enforced world-wide with the same energy that the US
+pressures countries to use for copyright enforcement, we could have
+global trade, clean factories, and high wages. The world-wide free
+software community is an example of beneficial globalization: people
+share knowledge with the whole world.</p>
+
+<h3>Ethics</h3>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> How is ethical &ldquo;work&rdquo; best done? It seems
+that you often invoke teachers like Buddha or Jesus as examples of a
+ethical way of life.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I never invoke Jesus. I am not a Christian and I don't
+especially admire Jesus. I admire Buddha somewhat more, but I don't
+invoke any teacher or hero as an <b>authority</b>, only perhaps as an
+<b>example</b>.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> It is also clear that one of the fascinating and
+influential features of your work is that you live as you teach. Is
+that a conscious decision in the sense that you think that ethics is
+something that can be taught best through example?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Not at all. I do write about my ethical ideas, and I
+would like to do it more and better if I could. Of course, it is
+necessary to live in conformity with one's principles, or one is a
+hypocrite and people can see that.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> If we say that the reason for ethical behavior must be
+given in the public sphere, let's say through a social contract or
+something similar, and if we at the same time notice that the
+economical/commercial sphere is driven by &ldquo;maximum
+profit&rdquo;-type of principles, then we have to have some sort of
+separation between the public and the commercial world.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't follow this reasoning&mdash;I see no
+separation. Ethics applies to everyone, and the whole point of ethics
+is that some things you might selfishly wish to do are wrong, so you
+may not do them. This applies to group selfishness just as as to
+personal selfishness.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> &hellip; and then the commercial world would be
+something that almost by necessity corrupts the idea of freedom.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Business does have that tendency. Corporations provide
+a mechanism to distill the selfishness out of people who, as
+individuals, are partly selfish but also have ethics to limit their
+selfishness. The result is selfishness that can often be unchecked by
+any ethics. To change this will require taking away the power of
+global business over governments.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Reading Steven Levy's Hackers once again, I was struck
+by one issue: the hackers as displayed in the book are mostly
+concerned with the hacker ethic in so far as it concerns &ldquo;tools
+to make tools&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think so. A number of our programs were tools
+for making programs, but very few were specifically &ldquo;tools to
+make tools&rdquo;. Why were many of them tools? Because hackers
+writing programs get ideas for better ways to do that. What computer
+hackers do is program. So they get excited about anything that makes
+programming easier.<br />
+If a hacker does square dancing, he would get excited about anything
+on the computer that is helpful for square dancing. He might write a
+program to help people learn square dancing. This indeed has
+happened. A few computer hackers do square dancing, but all computer
+hackers program. So a few are interested in writing programs for
+square dancing, but many are interested in programs they can use while
+programming.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> Levy is not too hard on the point, but the
+unscrupulousness with which the early <abbr>MIT</abbr> hackers
+accepted the Department of Defence funding is a case in point.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Some of the hackers were uncomfortable with DoD funding
+at the time, but they did not go so far as to rebel against it (by
+quitting, say). I disagreed with them I don't think it was wrong to
+accept that funding, and I did not think it wrong at the
+time. Corporate funding is far more dangerous.<br />
+So I would not call them unscrupulous for having accepted this funding.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> This reminds of the &ldquo;instrumental
+rationality&rdquo; that the Frankfurt school of critical theorists
+talked about; rationality that pertains to tools, but not goals.</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Engineers of all kinds are famous for this; I am not
+sure it is more true of hackers than others.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> So, this brings me to the question, if ethics is about
+goals and about content, what exactly is the society or community that
+Free Software promotes?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> My goal is that we help each other to live better together.
+Advancing human knowledge is a part of this; making sure it is
+available to everyone is a part of this; encouraging the spirit of
+cooperation is a part of this. Those goals apply to various parts of
+life, but in the area of software they direct one towards free software.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> When and how did you notice that the Tools to Make
+Tools-attitude is not enough?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> That just tools without thinking of what to do with
+them is one I picked up this idea in my teens, I think. It was well
+known in the 60s; one did not have to be especially searching to
+happen across it then. I think of the Tom Lehrer song, &ldquo;Werner
+von Braun&rdquo;:</p>
+<blockquote><p>
+I send rockets up, but where they come down<br />
+is not my department, says Werner von Braun.
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>Lots of people heard this song.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> And, maybe most interestingly, how do you combine the
+two, the hacking that is intense and interesting and the ethical
+real-world work, that is often tenuous and boring? </p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Here you seem to assume that hacking is neither ethical nor
+real-world. I disagree with both assumptions. By the way, some parts of
+developing and releasing a working program are tedious; they are not
+merely boring, they are frustrating. But hackers by the thousands in
+the free software community do these tasks in order to release working
+and reliable free software.</p>
+
+<p><b>TV:</b> I think this is even quite common in fields like
+computer science, physics, mathematics, philosophy, where the
+austerity and purity of the formalism give an intense pleasure of a
+&lsquo;non-earthly&rsquo; kind. Is there a link? Should there be? And
+how do you bridge the two?</p>
+
+<p><b>RMS:</b> Is there a link between the pleasure of pure math and
+the rest of life? No, I see very little connection, and why should
+there be one?</p>
+
+<p>I enjoy folk dancing, as well as pure math. There is very little
+link between either of those pleasures and the rest of what I do. Why
+should there be? They are both harmless. Is there a &ldquo;gap&rdquo;
+that I need to &ldquo;bridge&rdquo;?</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 3.0 US. 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; 2002 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:45 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>